Preamble

The House met at half-past Two O'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Air Services

Mr. Coombs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the average fares per mile on scheduled air services between the United Kingdom and (a) Amsterdam and (b) Paris.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): Since our agreement last year with the Dutch, lowest fares between London and Amsterdam have fallen by as much as 44 per cent. The lowest fare to Paris has risen by 4 per cent. I have placed details of the fares in the Library.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures are remarkable and demonstrate the importance of opening up European air routes to maximum competition? Does he recognise the need for continuing negotiations with the French about the London-Paris route, which has shown not a remarkable improvement but a deterioration? Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the negotiations are proceeding?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right to say that the new liberal regime with the Dutch has had a dramatic effect on travel between London and Amsterdam, which in the last year has risen by almost 17 per cent., against the European average of 10 per cent. I am hoping to see in the next few weeks the French Minister responsible for aviation to discuss how to improve fare structures between Britain and France.

Mr. Skinner: Instead of spending so much time with his continental counterparts, will the Minister do something constructive for Swindon and stop rail closures which will result in mass unemployment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Amsterdam.

Mr. Spicer: In the first part of his question the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) implied that he did not agree with what we are doing to achieve lower fares for our country men who want to travel to Europe, but we shall press on.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend approach these important negotiations with the treaty of Rome and its important free competition provisions in mind? Is it not prima facie the case that a number of countries, including France, are not acting according to the spirit of those provisions?

Mr. Spicer: Yes. The Government are becoming increasingly impatient over the fact that the provisions of the treaty of Rome, which apply to manufacturing, do not seem to apply to services —especially not to aviation.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to persuade other European countries to agree to more liberal air service arrangements with the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): We have negotiated liberal air services arrangements with the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg. We are in the course of discussions with France, Italy, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, and are maintaining pressure for the establishment of a liberal air transport policy by the European Community.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for, and congratulate him on, the progress that he has made. Which countries are dragging their feet? Would it not be a good idea to open negotiations with countries outside the EEC, such as those in Scandanavia, to bring home to them the benefits to their tourist trade of lower fares, and so hit in the pocket those countries which are being obstructive?

Mr. Ridley: We are approaching non-EEC countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Austria and Switzerland, to try to negotiate liberal arrangements with them. My hon. Friend will be reassured and pleased to hear that of the 10 new services to the Netherlands six serve regional airports in Britain, and that two out of six new services to Germany also serve regional airports.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I encourage the Secretary of State to extend his negotiations to east European countries, such as East Germany? It seems ridiculous that we should not be able to fly direct to Berlin without having to go to Amsterdam or Brussels and then half way round the Baltic. Is there any chance of making progress with those countries?

Mr. Ridley: That is a rather different proposition. They are not used to liberal private enterprise competitive arrangements in those parts of Europe. I shall bear in mind, however, the hon. Gentleman's exhortation that I should persuade them to be so.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: When my right hon. Friend has his negotiations with the French Government on this issue, will he try to persuade them that it is crazy for them to keep a closed shop both on fares and services to Strasbourg, which is, after all, meant to be the headquarters not only of the European Assembly but of the Council of Europe? They are unduly restrictive in terms of fares and planes flying to Strasbourg.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. On the route to Paris and to other airports in France, including Strasbourg, there seems no reason why we should not have a completely liberal arrangement. We are continuing to urge that view on our French friends, and we can only hope that my hon. Friend's supplementary question will have contributed to that end.

Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major problem is the pooling arrangements which the state airlines enter into with each other? Will his measures and sensible White Paper help to liberalise the arrangements, provide more competition and help to break the cartel?

Mr. Ridley: I only wish that I could bring the pooling arrangements to an end. We have made that view clear in the Council of Transport Ministers and shall continue to do so. I am afraid, however, that I must tell my hon. Friend that it takes two to reach an agreement—it takes two to tango in these matters—and that until we can persuade the other European states to accept a more open transport regime we shall not succeed.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend, when considering the whole matter of liberalisation, try to persuade his Department and foreign Governments to give greater encouragement to small independent airlines, BCal and others, to come forward and take up opportunities? Will he, at the same time, discourage British Airways from trying to hog the whole lot?

Mr. Ridley: I assure my hon. Friend that my Department needs no encouraging in that direction. Nor do I. He will agree that my record, both in connection with the civil aviation review and the airports White Paper, has been to try to find ways to encourage the smaller independent airlines to have more opportunities and more room for growth.

Nationalised Industries (Purchasing Policy)

Mr. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to encourage nationalised industries for which he is responsible to buy from British firms wherever possible.

Mr. Eastham: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has issued any guidance to the British Railways Board concerning the nationality of companies tendering for new locomotive and carriage contracts.

Mr. Ridley: In line with the Government's purchasing policy, we would expect to see nationalised industries choosing to buy British, provided the products and prices are right. In the last few days the BR chairman has reaffirmed that that is indeed BR policy.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that it would be a disaster if major British companies such as GEC and its Ruston diesel works in my constituency did not win the contract for the next generation of British Rail locomotives? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the chairman of British Rail that it is essential that should there be any tenders from foreign companies for the next generation of locomotives, they must be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny to ensure that there are no hidden subsidies or unfair competition in those tenders?

Mr. Ridley: Two main locomotive orders are coming forward, one for the Electra class 91 electric locomotives and the other for the replacement of the freight diesel locomotives. There are now three contenders, as it were —three tenderers—for the first. British Rail has not yet gone out to tender on the second, although it is much the biggest programme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that BR is acutely aware of the desirability of getting competitive prices and standards of performance from British manufacturers, and I hope that it will succeed in doing so because we all have the same interests in mind.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Secretary of State aware that when Mr. Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, was interviewed recently about the locomotive orders he stated

clearly that there are no inhibitions on placing orders abroad? Would it not be idiotic to see British Rail ordering those locomotives from France, America or Japan? Does the Minister believe that any of those countries would place orders in this country?

Mr. Ridley: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, many overseas markets are open to British Rail Engineering Ltd. If we are to be able to sell our railway stock overseas, we should be prepared to buy overseas. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I shall quote from Railnews, in which the chairman of British Rail said:
the Board's policy is to buy British whenever the product and the price is right; we buy 95 per cent, of our goods, supplies and services from British firms.
So the chairman is aware of the sort of views that the hon. Gentleman expresses.

Mr. Adley: Is the problem not just the reliability of some British Rail engines, but the lack of extensive manufacturing runs available to British diesel engine manufacturers? Will my right hon. Friend study what was done by the Conservative Government in the 1930s when they gave assistance to private railway companies? Will he do likewise and place orders at Government expense with British manufacturers for some prototypes to enable British Rail to make detailed and extensive tests?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend correctly mentions reliability. There are more complaints from hon. Members about punctuality on the railways than any other subject. If we are to improve punctuality, we must have reliable railway engines which do not break down. That is why it must be right for British Rail to ensure the reliability of the products that it is now seeking to buy. It is for British Rail to decide which prototypes it will purchase. It has been purchasing several prototype locomotives so that it can assess their performance.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State mentioned overseas orders available to British Rail. Is he not aware that foreign buyers will not buy British products if our railway system does not buy them? Why does he not put some investment into British Rail to help its workshops to develop new coaches and various things? Why does he not do something instead of whining all the time about the need for competitiveness?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He will be aware that a number of foreign railways have purchased from British Rail Engineering Ltd. Mexico has recently ordered a number of International coaches. If we are to keep such markets open, we cannot declare a policy that our market will be closed. I am not remotely prepared to do that. If the engineering industry can sell to British Rail —winning competition on prices and standards—it can win orders overseas at the same time, because it will be in a superior position to do so.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that attractive though protectionism may seem in individual cases, it is contrary to the European Community rules and would lead to disaster for us as a major trading and exporting nation? However, will he ensure that our European partners are as fair as we are?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with both my hon. Friend's points. A protectionist policy would not just be illegal under our obligations under the treaty of Rome, it would be


disastrous because it would encourage our industry to lose its competitive edge and thus be unable to earn more orders in the world market and create more jobs.

Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that under this Government we have already seen the closure of Horwich railway works, that we are shortly to see the closure of the Swindon railway works and that outside the inter-city network British Rail is falling apart? Is it not about time that the Government started defending British railway engineering expertise instead of giving aid and comfort to our competitors, and started to protect British workmen and an industry which this country gave to the world instead of seeking continually to undermine it?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman, as always, is wholly wrong. He should know that the high level of investment in British Rail for which he and his hon. Friends have been calling has been delivered by the Government. The result of that investment is that the products do not need so much maintenance and repair. That has been the cause of the lack of work for British Rail Engineering Limited. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he should ask the union that sponsors him to tell him.

Services (Signposting)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to make it easier for restaurants, garages, hotels and guest houses in rural areas to have their facilities signposted on trunk roads.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The signing of hotels in rural areas is becoming progressively more established, along with the further development of holiday route signs. I have recently introduced a system of white and brown signs where facilities such as fuel, meals and accommodation can be found off the main road. I have also begun a general review of direction signing, and I will consider any suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, but in that case why is it that services in Northumberland, on bypassed sections of the Al, face endless obstruction in their attempts to get reasonable signs? Is the Minister aware of the extent to which the county council claims to be acting as the agent of the Secretary of State in refusing those signs? Does she realise how difficult it is for small businesses which want to maintain the passing trade that is available?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of how difficult it can be for small businesses which want to maintain the passing trade. There is no obstruction, I hope, in Northumberland or anywhere else to the mounting of signs. I know that there was a case at a place called Scremerston recently, but that is very much in its early days, and we are looking at it with Northumberland county council.

Mr. Neale: I thank my hon. Friend for the careful consideration that she always gives to the matter, and for her recent announcement of a review. Nevertheless, will she accept that small businesses and tourism in areas such as the west country would gain immeasurably if there were an early announcement of the principles on which approved signs can be constructed? Does she agree that the evidence obtained from the trials of the brown and white signs supports the introduction of such signs far more quickly in areas such as the west country?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right about the review of direction signs. It is much needed, and I hope that, as a result of new measures that I am taking, it will be finished much earlier than we originally predicted.
With regard to the use of brown and white direction signs for communities that are now bypassed, I shall be happy for any county council—Devon and Cornwall or any other—to have the brown and white signs if that can be agreed with the British Tourist Authority.

Cyclists

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the progress being made by local authorities in providing improved facilities for cyclists; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: I am encouraged by the progress being made by many local authorities, but facilities need to be accompanied by constant attention to safety on the part of all road users.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that there is a growing desire among local authorities to provide facilities for cycling, but that they are unable to do so because of the Government's restrictive policies concerning local government finance?
As the Minister is such an enthusiast for cycling, will she say what action she is taking to try to end the contradictory situation in which the Government are urging local authorities to do something and are then preventing them from acting because they do not have the money to do it?

Mrs. Chalker: It would be wrong for us to dictate to local authorities exactly what, within the overall highways budget, their priorities should be. Every year they are asked to submit a transport policy and programme in which they are invited to give their criteria for cycling schemes. I shall be happy to note those and respond to such TPPs through the TSG. It is, of course, up to local councillors to decide what their priorities are within the overall highways budget.

Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend referred in her first answer to provision for safety, which is obviously very important. As a cyclist, I can assure my hon. Friend that it would help greatly if the Government were to make early progress with legislation dealing with motor vehicle emissions and black smoke from buses and lorries. That is one of the most unpleasant aspects of cycling in urban areas.

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend about emissions from vehicles which are not properly maintained. The traffic examiners have a right to stop such vehicles. With our speedy progress towards lead-free fuel, we shall certainly make progress in the next few years.

Coach Services

Mr. Parris: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many long-distance coach services have been registered; and what has been the increase in passengers carried by express coach since October 1980.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Since October 1980 more than 900 new services have been registered, of which some 700 are still running. That is a 20 per cent, increase in the number of all-year services. Passengers on the National


Bus Company's national express services have increased by about 50 per cent. since 1980. We believe that the independent operators must have increased their carryings by an even greater figure.

Mr. Parris: What has been the effect of those remarkable improvements on fares?

Mr. Spicer: Since we liberalised long-distance coach services in 1980, fares have been reduced in real terms by between 15 and 40 per cent., and on some routes fares remain lower than they were five years ago. Fare reductions combined with greatly inproved services explain the dramatic increase in business for long-distance coaches.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that the increase in passengers carried by the express coach services has been closely paralleled by a massive reduction in the number of passengers carried on rural stage carriage services? Does he further agree that if the Transport Bill is based on that principle people in rural areas know what to expect?

Mr. Spicer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decline in rural bus services has been a long-term factor, which is precisely why we have introduced the Transport Bill. It will bring back life once again to rural bus services.

Mr. Higgins: I welcome the improvement in long-distance coach services and the reduction in fares, but is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety caused by some coaches which appear to exceed the 70 mph limit? As the tachograph does not provide an adequate means to check that, will he consider the installation of some other device that will do so?

Mr. Spicer: We must always be vigilant about exceeding speed limits. During the past year there have been signs of greater compliance with limits. That is a matter for continual vigilance by the police. The Bus and Coach Council has issued its own code of practice, and we hope that the bus industry will comply with it.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware of the problems caused by the rapid growth in the number of coaches in central London? Even before we reach the height of the tourist season, many London streets are clogged by parked coaches, which causes major problems for other road users. Has he received representations about that, and what action will he take?

Mr. Spicer: I am informed that we are studying the whole question of congestion in the London area. It has as much to do with the great increase in tourism as with the liberalisation of coach services outside London.

Mr. Gregory: Bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the deregulation of long-distance coaches, and the carping by the Opposition, and in particular unions, such as the Transport and General Workers Union, that we would see the decimination of long-distance coaches, can he draw any conclusions regarding the deregulation of short-distance coach and bus services?

Mr. Spicer: My main conclusion is that the Opposition are likely to be as inaccurate in future about short distance services as they have been in the past about long-distance services.

Mr. Stott: On the latter point, only time will tell. In addition to giving the number of long-distance coach

operations that have been registered since 1980, will the Minister tell the House the number of small and intermediate-sized towns which prior to 1980 were served by long-distance coaches, but are no longer served by them? If he considers that fact, I am sure that he will conclude, as I do, that many towns are no longer served by long-distance coaches, as a direct consequence of the 1980 legislation.

Mr. Spicer: We know that the number of long-distance services between towns has increased considerably. I have already accepted that there has been a long-term decline in rural services, but we hope to increase those services in future.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Has the deregulation of long-distance coach services had an effect on safety regulations?

Mr. Spicer: One must never be complacent about safety, but I assure my hon. Friend that the safety record of coaches is good and is improving all the time. For instance, during the past decade, fatalities of bus and coach passengers have halved. Therefore, the safety of coach travel is now about equal to that of rail travel.

A127

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve the A127; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: The general public are currently being consulted about a proposal for an underpass at Rayleigh weir. A proposed improvement at the "Fortune of War" is also under discussion with Basildon development corporation. More central reserve safety fencing is to be provided, completing provision throughout. Further improvements will be considered when the effects of the completed M25 have been established.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that list of improvements. Will she confirm that the A127 is a heavily used road and that congestion occurs especially at peak commuter hours? Will not the proposal by development consortia to build a new town of more than 5,000 houses between Bulphan and West Horndon place incredible strains on the A127?

Mrs. Chalker: I have heard about the proposed development at Tillingham Hall. I am aware that an outline planning application has been made. I would expect the local planning authority to consult my Department on the traffic implications for the A127 and especially for the A128 interchange. We shall then consider carefully whether the volume of traffic on the A127 is likely to increase as a result, as traffic on the road between the junction with the M25 and the A128 has increased by about 9,000 vehicles a day since January 1984.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that people from all over the United Kingdom wish to travel to Basildon but are hampered in so doing by the lack of road signs along the A127, the M25 and the Ml 1? Will she please help us, and deny that this is a conspiracy to keep the whereabouts of Basildon a secret?

Mrs. Chalker: I lived for some time just down the line from Basildon, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there


is no way in which Basildon can be kept secret. I am well aware that the town wishes to be a primary destination. At present, we are conducting a major review of destination and direction signing, in which Basildon is being considered. We are improving the A127 at the junction with the B1007, which will help Basildon.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the A127 goes to Aberdeen.

London Regional Transport

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will have consultations with the chairman of London Regional Transport about its advertising policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: Advertising policy is a matter for the London Regional Transport board, but I would expect to discuss it with the chairman from time to time.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the expensive advertising and misinformation campaign about the excellent work of LRT that has been carried out by the GLC? It includes mendacious stories about pensioners losing their concessionary passes after the abolition of the GLC. Is it not time that LRT was assisted in promoting its cause by means of advertising, and is it not time that the GLC stopped its mendacious behaviour?

Mrs. Chalker: We all live in hope that the GLC will stop spreading false rumours. However, LRT believes in answering propaganda with the facts, which is absolutely right. LRT has stringent conditions on the acceptance of advertising. It does not accept advertisements such as those which were accepted when the GLC removed the ban on political advertising for a while to suit its purposes. I assure my hon. Friend that any misinformation published by the GLC will be answered by LRT with the facts.

Mrs. Dun woody: Does the Minister realise that one way in which LRT can advertise its services is to ensure that everyone knows that they are safe? Therefore, will she make public the report on the £2.5 million fire at Oxford Circus last year, when about 1,000 passengers were trapped underground? There is some evidence to suggest that the report will not be published. Why not?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand that the inquiry into that fire—both LRT and the emergency services are to be congratulated on the way in which they got people out of that situation—was not a formal inquiry. I shall look at what the hon. Lady said, but there is no question of anything being hidden away, as her question might imply.

Road Safety (Research)

Mr. Knowles: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his Department's programme of research to improve road safety.

Mrs. Chalker: We have an active programme of research into a variety of road safety issues, including vehicle and highway design, as well as road user behaviour. I am currently reviewing our priorities for the next few years.

Mr. Knowles: Will my hon. Friend confirm that pai of the plan covers highway engineering, which is o importance to all constituencies and to all hon. Member who represent constituencies close to the Ml?

Mrs. Chalker: This is a matter of concern to everybody, wherever they live or do their constituent work. In addition to the £1-6 million out of the total of general highway engineering research, other research i going on in the Transport and Road Research Laboratory We are carrying out extramural research with various universities and others because we want to keep the position that we have achieved of having some of the best highway engineering in the world.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister examining the safety of public service vehicles in the light of recent coach accidents? For instance, is it possible to consider whether anti-roll bars should be insisted on? If so, what possibility is there of legislation that might bring them into effect as soon as possible?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman'; concern, because I share it. He will know that we have been discussing coach safety with the working group i: Europe, because not just British coaches but coaches from all over Europe and beyond are involved. We an progressing on two fronts: first, the provision of anti..roll bar equipment; and, secondly, seats against which any passenger might be thrown and the provision of belts in the front. There is also the provision for drivers. So far we have not reached agreement, but we are pressing on as fas as we can.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the success of the introduction of compulsory seat belts in private motor vehicles, how long will it be before there will be at least the provision of seat belts in public transport vehicles?

Mrs. Chalker: There is nothing to stop an operator putting at least a lap belt in a public service vehicle, However, the problem is that there is no central gangway support to which one could attach a shoulder belt, which is the safest belt of all. That is why we have been actively pursuing rsearch on the seat strengths to hold passengers in. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact time, but we are discussing this in the high-level working group.

Mr. Leadbitter: Has the Minister considered the considerable contribution to road safety that can come from the construction of concrete barriers? Has her Department examined that possibility; and, if so, have any recommendations been made to the local authorities which may be concerned with the problem?

Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to central reservation barriers. The laboratory at Crowthorne has looked at these, but they have not been found to be as safe as we believed. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the latest position on road safety barriers.

Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that road safety between London and east Dorset has been considerably improved by the opening of the extension of the M3? Is she further aware that those who use that road regularly congratulate both her and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on their persistence in getting this important section of road opened at last?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but I can only repeat that any road can only be


as safe as the drivers upon it. They have to drive within the limitation of their vehicles and the road and weather conditions of the day.

Mr. Stott: What steps is the Minister prepared to take to enforce the reduction of spray from heavy lorries? She will be aware of products on the market that are specifically designed as spray suppressant units. A number of them are very good. They substantially reduce the levels of spray generated by lorries on the motorway. Is it not time that she brought forward construction and use regulations to compel manufacturers and owners of lorries to fix spray suppressant units to their tractors and trailers to cut down the amount of spray that is generated on our motorways?

Mrs. Chalker: In the past 12 months I have brought in construction and use regulations to require the need to fit spray suppression equipment. As time passes and greater experience of such equipment is gained, I am sure that there will be a case for tightening up those regulations and possibly for extending the fitting of this equipment to other types of vehicles, which is not required at present.

British Rail (Equal Employment Opportunities)

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise with him the issue of equal employment opportunities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It is the duty of the board to adhere to statutory requirements and within that to develop its own employment policies.

Mr. Cohen: The recent Equal Opportunities Commission report shows that there is widespread sexual discrimination in British Rail's recruitment and employment policies. Of the total work force, only 7 per cent. are women. They are very few women drivers and guards and very few women in management. Indeed, British Rail sometimes punishes men by making them work with women in some of the heaviest jobs, an example of which is carriage cleaning. Will the Minister take prompt action on the report to ensure that the management of British Rail works towards equal opportunities?

Mr. Mitchell: The British Railways Board is keen to co-operate with the Equal Opportunities Commission. However, the report is only a draft. We in the Department have not seen it. Therefore, I am in no position to comment on its contents.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Community Law Centres

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement regarding the Government's policy on the future of community law centres.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The Government have acknowledged that law centres may have a part to play, where this suits local circumstances, in the provision of legal services. Central Government support for law centres continues to be provided primarily under the urban programme, in accordance with its general principles and procedures. Such centres are seen as

essentially matters for local decision and initiative, depending on the value which local authorities and communities place on them, according to local circumstances.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for accepting that law centres provide a valuable public service. Given the variety of funding sources, would it not be of considerable assistance if the Lord Chancellor accepted responsibility for at least co-ordinating and overseeing the centres in a supportive way? Is the difficulty really that the Lord Chancellor lacks statutory authority to do this, or is it that the Department of the Environment and the Lord Chancellor's Department are passing the issue back and forth from one to the other?

The Attorney-General: There is no question of their passing the buck from one to the other, as has been suggested on a number of occasions. The Lord Chancellor does not have statutory power. He has taken over the seven law centres which his predecessor funded without authority and has maintained their funding. The rest are funded through the Department of the Environment. The Government's view is that circumstances vary so much from area to area that it is much better that a centre should be initiated and maintained by the local area. However, not only local authority money is involved. The centres are also maintained partly by charitable assistance and voluntary subscriptions.

Mr. Franks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the provision of law centres is at the discretion of the appropriate local authority, that many law centres are provided by Left-wing authorities, and that it ill becomes the Opposition to criticise when the remedy lies in the hands of those self-same local authorities?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right about one specific case. Because Lambeth has not yet made a rate, it has said that it is unable to assist its law centre. There is no doubt that law centres have provided a necessary degree of assistance.

Mr. Foster: Will the Attorney-General admit that there are very wide gaps in the availability of legal advice on benefits issues or on some aspects of housing, for example? In Newton Aycliffe, in my constituency, hundreds of new owner-occupiers cannot get the advice that they require about the Housing Defects Act, and local lawyers do not seem to have a clue. Could not problems of this sort be more properly handled with a system of law centres up and down the country?

The Attorney-General: Law centres, which were created largely as a result of local initiative, have been able to assist where legal aid is not available in non-contentious matters. The question overlooks the benefit of the help given by citizens advice bureaux, which are often able to provide the kind of information to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present piecemeal method of funding community law centres gives the impression to many people that the Government are not wholly committed to their value?

The Attorney-General: Community law centres have been funded largely out of Government money, but the initiative should lie with local people — the local authorities, charities and other voluntary bodies.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Attorney- General aware that people will be grateful for his acknowledgement of the value of law centres? However, does he agree that it is unsatisfactory that the law centres do not know from year to year whether they will be able to continue in existence because they have to await a decision on the urban aid programme?

The Attorney-General: The funding of community law centres depends not only upon the urban aid programme, but upon whether local authorities are prepared to state their future plans for their law centres. However, in respect of those law centres which have been given a guarantee of only two years, I can give the House an undertaking that a decision will be taken before the end of the financial year.

Mr. Neale: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although law centres may be necessary to fill gaps in some areas, in areas where local provision is already made by other organisations, either professional or voluntary, it would be ridiculous for that advice to be duplicated, and even more ridiculous for a national blanket provision to be made for it by the Government? Is it not far better for local authorities in each area to decide whether there is a gap to be filled?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has set out exactly the reason which caused us to take this decision.

Mr. John Morris: As the Attorney-General has stated that the Lord Chancellor lacks statutory authority over law centres, will he look sympathetically at an amendment to provide such authority during the proceedings on the Administration of Justice Bill?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that on this matter I am simply the agent of my noble and learned Friend. Therefore, I should have to consult him about it.

Circuit Judges

Mr. Alex Carlile: asked the Attorney-General how many circuit judges there were in June 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively; what is the present establishment of circuit judges; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: The numbers of circuit judges were: 1 June 1982, 335; 1 June 1983, 346; 1 June 1984, 353; and 1 June 1985, 374.

Mr. Carlile: I welcome the increase in the number of circuit judges. However, does the Attorney-General agree that there are still intolerable delays in the trials of serious cases in the Crown courts? Is there not still a considerable need for the appointment of more circuit judges? Does he also agree that it is the judges who carry much of the responsibility for speeding up the terrible delays which sometimes occur in the police force and in the DPP's Department over the processing of cases quickly for trial?

The Attorney-General: I can give the lie to that question. Between 1979 and 1984 the number of committals for trial to the Crown court increased by over 50 per cent. Despite this surge, the average waiting time, because of the appointment of additional judges and the provision of extra court rooms, has been reduced from 17.3 weeks in 1979 to 14.2 weeks in 1983, and in 1984 it was held at 14.3 weeks. By the appointment of extra

judges—those appointments will have to continue and we expect there to be 440 circuit judges by the end of this decade—the waiting time figures have been reduced. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the delays are still far too long and that we must continue to do everything that we can to reduce them.

Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the increase in the number of cases coming to trial may be because the magistrates' courts—not the circuit courts or the Crown courts—cannot devote the time that is necessary to deal with the kind of defended cases that can be dealt with in the circuit courts?

The Attorney-General: The problem goes even further than that. The percentage of acquittals ordered by judges was, I think, 40 per cent. of all those who pleaded not guilty in the circuit courts. There must be something wrong, and that something is that some cases that should never have been sent to trial were so sent. In the Metropolitan police area, a large percentage—I believe about 40 per cent. — of cases are committed for trial without a solicitor of the Metropolitan solicitors' department seeing them. To some extent, that is why I issued the guidelines about prosecutions. When we have the new national prosecuting service, we should have much more control. I hope that there will not then be so much wasted time, which causes agony to the defendant, especially when he should never have been sitting in the dock in the first place.

Mr. John Morris: During the process of the legislation that first designated circuit judges, I believe that the Lord Chancellor said that there would, from time to time, be promotions from the circuit to the High Court bench. Am I right in thinking that in the past couple of years there has been only one such promotion? Does the Lord Chancellor still hold to that policy?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I do not know the answer. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, in that most of the promotions to the High Court Bench have involved members of the Bar

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Ethiopia

Mr. Bowen Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the delivery of food aid to Ethiopia.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Total food aid deliveries to Ethiopia so far this year are 680,000 tonnes. The European Community and its member states have delivered 204,000 tonnes since the European Council in Dublin last December, the Community share of which is 124,000 tonnes. We stand ready to provide up to 10,000 tonnes more bilateral food aid when we are satisfied about the arrangements to be made for its transport and distribution in Ethiopia.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how frustrating it is when one tries to find out exactly what is happening from the European Commission? In the past month I have tabled several written questions, only to receive equivocal answers. Those answers are given in both committed and delivered terms, but we never find out


what has been delivered to the people who need it and to those who are starving in the Sudan, Ethiopia and southern Saharan countries. Has not the problem of delivery been exacerbated by the fact that, despite my right hon. Friend's urgings, the European Commission waited nearly three months before getting started on the railway which could deliver food to the western Sudan and Darfur? The quantities that the European Commission has delivered are far short of what is needed and what it undertook to deliver at Dublin and before then

Mr. Raison: With respect to my hon. Friend, the figures that I gave are delivery figures. I am not saying that in every case they relate to what has been delivered to individuals. My hon. Friend will understand that it is remarkably difficult to give accurate figures for that. Nevertheless, I have given delivery figures.
My hon. Friend's point about the railway refers to the Sudan rather than to Ethiopia, which is the subject of the question. However, I think that he will know that progress is now being made towards getting the railway line to western Sudan working effectively.

Mr. Beith: Are not the revelations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs about the double counting of EEC aid and the Department's budget pressures so important and urgent that they cannot await the normal process of Government response and debate in the House before something is done?

Mr. Raison: Hon. Members will have a chance tomorrow to debate all these matters. However, it is only right that we should reply to the Select Committee in the usual way, and we certainly intend to do so before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Baldry: Does the assistant secretary-general in Addis Ababa, who has responsibility for co-ordinating activity, send the Government details of what aid has been delivered and whether it is getting through to those who need it? If so, how often are they sent to the Government? Is my right hon. satisfied with their detail?

Mr. Raison: We have the closest contact with Mr. Jansson through our embassy in Addis Ababa. I cannot say exactly how often such reports come, but from reading the telegrams I know how much detail there is and how regularly the whole question is discussed.

Dame Judith Hart: Has the Minister heard, perhaps on the radio this morning, the appeal of United Nations officers in the area for more vehicles to expedite deliveries in Ethiopia and, particularly, in Sudan? What response is he likely to make to that appeal? One's impression is that the right hon. Gentleman has a certain complacency towards the provision of vehicles.

Mr. Raison: The next question on the Order Paper is specifically about vehicles, and I shall give some information then. In Ethiopia, which is the subject of the question, there are, I believe, a large number of road vehicles available. I have been pressing the Ethiopian Government to make available the substantial number of trucks that they have available but which are not being used.

Ethiopia

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about vehicles available for relief and rescue operations in Ethiopia.

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government are providing for transport of relief supplies within Ethiopia.

Mr. Raison: About 3,000 long and short haul trucks are needed in all. Of these, about 1,300 are currently deployed, including 350 recently made available by the Ethiopians. A further 450 trucks pledged by donors should arrive soon and we hoped that the Ethiopians will provide more. We shall now provide further assistance of £750,000 for transport needs in Ethiopia, including semi-trailers and truck hire costs. In addition, and provided it can operate effectively during the rains, we have decided to extend the British airlift until 30 September. It will then be withdrawn after 11 months' magnificent work.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the latter part of my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Ethiopian Government have failed to carry out the commitment that they gave some months ago—which was both practicable and reasonable — to provide 4,000 vehicles for the much needed distribution of aid in parts of Ethiopia? Has my right hon. Friend made any estimate of the additional suffering caused to the Ethiopian people by that oppressive non-commitment of their Government?

Mr. Raison: I cannot give any such estimate, but for some months we and other Western donors have been pressing the Ethiopians to fulfil their earlier promises to provide vehicles. They have at last undertaken to deploy military vehicles and all other available transport to increase the daily take-off from the port of Assab from 1,200 tonnes to 4,000 tonnes a day to clear congestion there. I hope that that exercise will be carried out successfully.

Mr. Forman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Chapman). Do the 350 vehicles that the Ethiopians have already made available represent a significant part of total transport needs? If not, will my right hon. Friend put on record the number of vehicles that the Ethiopians could use if they were minded to do so?

Mr. Raison: The 350 vehicles are a valuable and significant contribution. I believe that the Ethopians have about 4,000 military trucks. The more trucks that are made available, the sooner the task of transporting food across the country will be able to proceed.

Mr. Maclennan: Why has the Minister announced the proposal to discontinue our valuable transport service after 11 months? Does he believe that the service is complete?

Mr. Raison: I believe that by the end of September there should be sufficient road transport available. It already accounts for 90 per cent. of the distribution of food and other relief supplies. Moreover, the roads should be usable after the rainy season.

Famine Prevention

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a


statement concerning initiatives of Her Majesty's Government designed to prevent the recurrence of famine disasters.

Mr. Raison: Under our regular aid programme, we shall seek any new opportunities to anticipate and to cope more effectively with famine. At the Bonn economic summit we agreed with our partners that the expert group established to prepare proposals for follow-up measures in relation to the African drought and famine should report to Foreign Ministers by September 1985. We are also supporting moves by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation to improve its early warning mechanisms.

Mr. Spearing: Is not the regular aid programme a bit askew? Have not the Government reduced by up to 25 per cent. the personnel of the Tropical Development Research Institute who are concerned with preventing the sort of disasters that we have seen? Will the Minister review that disastrous decision and make an announcement on this important matter even before he replies to the Select Committee's report, which advocated restaffing those important units of the ODA?

Mr. Raison: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have made cuts in the personnel of the TDRI, but it is still a highly effective unit which is appreciated across the world, and it is doing extremely valuable work in Africa and elsewhere.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we are discussing famine relief and aid generally there is a danger of our overlooking the point that The Times leader made today—that Africa is now virtually the only continent which is unable to provide sufficient crops for the relief of its own citizens? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that as long as there are regimes, such as those in Sudan and Ethiopia, which are a great deal more concerned about their political ideologies than about the care of their citizens, no end to the problems is in sight?

Mr. Raison: I agree that Africa's food problems are very much complicated by political factors, but we must recognise that there is a strong need for resources and expertise. We play a substantial part in providing both.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the anxiety expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House today about coach safety. When I have tabled questions on the matter, I seem to recall being informed by the Table Office, or by the Department of Transport, that central statistics are not kept and are therefore not available in so far as they relate to coach accidents. My hon. Friend the Minister's announcement today appears to contradict that earlier evidence, however, so could could you ensure that, if information is available to the Department of Transport, it is also made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot give that undertaking, but if the Table Office is responsible for not allowing the hon. Gentleman to put down a question, I shall look into it.

Mr. Rajab

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Foreign Office to make a statement on the deplorable incident relating to the Syrian diplomat Mr. Rajab? This is a matter of the gravest importance, about which there are full reports on the radio and in newspapers to the effect that the diplomat is to be expelled by Friday if the matter is not resolved satisfactorily. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members should not be the last people to know.

Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's latter comment, but I have received no request for such a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT)

(No. 2) BILL

Dr. David Clark supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. Peter Hardy and Dr. Mark Hughes presented a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to improve and clarify certain procedures under section 28 of that Act relating to notification of proposed sites of special scientific interest: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the two questions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the Value Added Tax (Hiring of Goods) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 799), dated 22nd May 1985, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Deer (Firearms, etc.) (Scotland) Order 1985, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

[SECOND PART]

Oral Answers to Questions — Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons

Act

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome the decision to mark, by this debate, the 15th anniversary of the Royal Assent to my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill.
The House of Commons was never more constructive in its concern for people in special need than it was in its attitude to the Bill in the parliamentary Session 1969–70. There was no party animus in our proceedings. Everyone who spoke, whether here on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee, seemed to know the value of things as well as their cost.
It was a rare parliamentary moment when unity of purpose, in an important cause, triumphed over every other consideration. In a television programme on the Bill's enactment and effect, the presenter said:
It is difficult now for anyone to remember what life was like for disabled people before the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
Her statement to a huge national audience was a reminder of how far we have come, since the Act became law, along the road to full public recognition of the problems and needs of disabled people and of their now undoubted right to equal citizenship.
As the television presenter went on to say, we have seen a vast number of improvements in provision since the Act received the Royal Assent 15 years ago. Far more money is spent on cash benefits and services alike. Quantum leaps have been recorded in the numbers of people identified as disabled by their local authorities and millions of people with disabilities have had their lives made better by the provision of aids and by adaptations to their homes, as by the Act's wholly new emphasis on improving access to public and social buildings.
In the entirely new climate which the measure created, spending on benefits and services for chronically sick and disabled people went up in the Act's first decade, and under successive Governments, from £330 million in 1971–72 to £3,030 million in 1981–82. In my own five years as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, the increase in spending was from £590 million in 1973–74 to £1,830 million in 1978–79.
I do not wish today to catalogue every improvement or to analyse at length all the effort that has gone into the implementation of the Act since 1970. That has been done in a number of important books, notably "Disability: Legislation and Practice" by Duncan Guthrie and others, and "Charter for the Disabled" by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and Eda Topliss. I must, however, stress again in this debate that the enactment of my legislation was the work of a very wide
fellowship of people. What brought them together, when I won first place in the private Members' ballot in November 1969, was a long-awaited opportunity to try to achieve social justice for disabled people.
My supporters included all the individuals and groups to whom my friend Maureen Oswin paid tribute in another important book when she spoke of
the many unknown people who work for reform …. professionals who put their careers in jeopardy in order to speak out against injustices to handicapped people … parents who campaign for years in order to bring about changes which sometimes take so long to come into effect that their own children do not benefit from them …. researchers and writers who produce papers and books which help to change attitudes and bring about reform … and the voluntary organisations and pressure groups which do so much to create changes at local and national level.
Among countless others, they were the kind of people and groups who provided the impetus for the Bill's enactment. In their thousands they helped to transform the climate of parliamentary and public opinion from one of, at best, benign charity to one of acceptance that disabled people are entitled to live independent and dignified lives as full members of the community.
It must seem incredible and outrageous to many people now, but between 1945 and 1960 there was no mention in the manifestos of either of the main political parties of anything that might be done specifically to help disabled people. Between 1959 and 1964 there was not one debate in the House of Commons on disability. Notwithstanding all the advances in medicine, technology and communications, official attitudes to the claims of disabled people were both deadpan and dismissive.
It was through knocking on the doors of disabled constituents and trying to help those who knocked on my door, as well as from experience twice over of disability in my own family, that I became strongly convinced of the need for legislation to improve the well-being and status of disabled people. In Manchester alone, I knew of cases galore of disabled people who had every kind of moral justice on their side but no statutory right whatever to the help that they so vitally needed. If I was able to assist, more often than not it was as a guide through the maze of local charitable organisations or by asking a more than usually helpful local authority to stretch its permissive powers to breaking point. Even then, the beneficiaries were left with the feeling that they had been awarded a privilege for which they should be most truly thankful.
Every advocate of change knew that the permissive powers given to local authorities to help disabled people under the National Assistance Act 1948 were of only token value and that there was no likelihood of the law being changed by ministerial initiative. That applied even to the insistent claims for more humane provision for the many thousands of severely disabled young people whose appalling fate at that time was to be incarcerated in geriatric wards. I was much involved in campaigns to expose the treatment that those young people received, and heavy and protracted correspndence with DHSS Ministers left me deeply aware of the hopeless divisions in departmental responsibility for those and other disabled people and of strongly entrenched official opposition to legislation.
I was left with a fixed determination to change the law myself, if ever I had the opportunity to do so. The presenter of the television programme that I mentioned went on to recall
just how close the Act came to not being passed.

This may now be news to most people, even to the vast majority of disabled people who have ben helped by the Act's provisions. But for the Back Benchers who worked with me on the unlikely enterprise that we launched in 1969 —notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), the Honourable John Astor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), Sir Neil Marten and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) — the memory of how frequently close we came to disaster is abidingly clear. As the Act reaches its 15th anniversary, it is therefore appropriate for me warmly to acknowledge the unfailing help which they and other hon. Members on both sides of the House gave in enacting my private Member's Bill.
Our Bill became an Act of 29 sections. It affected 12 Departments of State and was a model for legislation in many other countries. We amended 39 existing Acts of Parliament, including such major statutes as the public Health Act 1936, the Education Act 1944, the National Health Service Act 1946, the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Housing Act 1957. We also made provisions, including those on access for disabled people to the built environment, where previously there was no legislation of any kind to amend.
At first I was not at all optimistic about the Bill reaching the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham has shown in the book "Charter for the Disabled", there was strong resistance behind the scenes from the late Richard Crossman, then Secretary of State for Social Services, to many of the Bill's provisions. There was also the problem of finding enough parliamentary time to complete all stages in both Houses of Parliament of what had become a very wide-ranging Bill.
To make matters worse, the parliamentary Session was cut short by the announcement in May 1970 of a general election. Lobby journalists then reported that the Bill was irretrievably doomed, but a very strange thing happened. My Bill had won strong all-party support, and was given precedence over most of the Government's own legislation in the few remaining days before Dissolution. It became law on the final day of the 1966–70 Parliament.
Conservative leaders, including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who became Prime Minister after the election, had made a strong commitment to the Act's philosophy and provisions. In fact, just before the general election was announced, they became pledged to enact my Bill themselves should it fall through lack of parliamentary time. Not for the first lime, however, there was a gulf between political commitment in opposition and positive action in government, and the Act undoubtedly lost some momentum due to the change of Government in June 1970.
Through lack of clear ministerial guidance, many people were unaware of the Act or that the Act applied, where appropriate, as much to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped as to people with physical and sensory disabilities. Others thought that, as the Act had originated as a private Member's Bill, its provisions did not have the same force as Government legislation. There is, of course, no such thing, but the new legislation was even referred to by some local authorities as a private Member's Act. This was responsible for slow reactions in some parts of the country, as was the myth that the Act had no financial backing.
Most unusually for a private Member's Bill, the Treasury had moved in the House of Commons and had


carried, without a division, a money resolution in support of my Bill. Had that resolution not been approved, the Bill could not have made any further progress and would have fallen on procedural grounds. Therefore, the many anguished reports about the cost of the Bill having to be met by local authorities were as baseless as its description as a private Member's Act.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: While my right hon. Friend is recounting the near miracle of getting the Bill on to the statute book, will he remind us that it was Lord Peart who at the time enabled the money resolution to be got through the House and that had it not been for his action the Bill would never have reached the statute book?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend, who himself played an important part throughout the Bill's proceedings, has anticipated my next remarks. Lord Peart was extremely helpful at all times. Without his help, and that of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Bill could.not have become law.
In 1970 it was said that the Bill was an extremely ambitious measure for any private Member to introduce. Looking back, I regret that it was not even more wide-ranging and that some of its provisions were not made stronger. The five sections on improving access to the built environment, for example, could have gone further. The legislation as a whole could have been applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland sooner. Again, I regret that the Bill did not make it illegal to discriminate against disabled people.
No legislation is ever the last word, and I am happy to say that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been more widely applied and made stonger in recent years. Its access provisions now extend to places of employment and have been strengthened in their effect. The Act as a whole today applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland and has thus become United Kingdom legislation.
The most pressing problem now is not naming an early date for any major new advance, but of doing all that we can to defend the services which the Act provides. Powerful voices are asking for more flexibility in applying the Act, by which they mean the right to dilute the provisions. Some local authorities protest that they now have to choose not only which of their discretionary powers to use, but even which of their legal duties to fulfil. Rate-capping and further cuts in rate support grant have made their dilemma even more cruel. "Must we break one law to stay within another law?" is how some council leaders sum up the agonising choice which they face.
It is not only Labour-controlled councils which protest. The Minister should read the extremely bitter comments on the Government's assessment of his borough's needs in a letter to The Times by Norman Hawkins, the Conservative leader of Hillingdon.
One official study after another makes it plain that local authorities now find it more and more difficult to fulfil their statutory duties to disabled people. Let us consider home helps. The number of people aged over 75 continues to increase, but the home help service is rapidly declining in terms of cases served and hours of service. Yet the over-75s need the home help service most, and the provisions of section 2 of the Act are clearly not reaching many of them in the way intended by the House when enacting my Bill.
The Secretary of State for Social Services uses the slogans of community care, but the Secretary of State for the Environment punishes every local attempt to make it a humane reality. For the city of Manchester, the capital allocation for social services for 1985-86 has been cut by a despicable 69.5 per cent. compared with last year. How does that help my city in trying to cope with its duties under the Act towards mentally handicapped people? Many other hard-pressed authorities fare little better, and yet we are told by the Secretary of State for Social Services of his total commitment to community care.
Essex county council has imposed a minimum £2 charge, regardless of income, on everyone using the home help service. Many desperate people on supplementary benefit in the county are unable to pay and no longer have a home help. They have lost a service which their county council has a legal duty to provide under section 2 of the Act. The legal advice to the present Minister, as it was to me when I was Minister between 1974 and 1979, is that a local authority cannot lawfully withdraw a service without diminution in need on the part of the disabled person.
The Prime Minister and her colleagues gave a pledge to disabled people that they would be "singled out" for special help. Yet in Essex, which includes the constituency of the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, disabled people say that they have been "singled out" for special hardship and that the law has been flouted to their detriment. How does the Minister answer that charge, of which he has been aware for many weeks, and what action has he taken?
Is it still the Government's policy that local authorities should not charge disabled people on supplementary benefit for their home helps? If so, should he not have strong words with Essex county council both about its repudiation of that policy and its discontinuance of the home help service to disabled people without diminution in need?
The legal requirements of the Act are not in dispute, as I was told in a letter sent to me by the Prime Minister on 23 January 1985—she wrote:
"Thank you for your letter of 27 December about the reply I gave to Tony Lloyd in the House on 13 December about the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the position…. You can rest assured that it was not my intention in any way to question the statutory duties imposed by the Act on local authorities, nor to indicate any change in the advice given to successive Ministers for the Disabled on this point. I am sorry if the wording of my reply suggested otherwise."
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act imposes a duty on the local authority to assess the needs of anyone who is permanently and substantially disabled in its area. It also has a duty to provide for a disabled person's need within a reasonable time.
The corollary of this duty, as I made clear more than once when I was the Minister, is that no local authority may lawfully discontinue a service to a disabled person if his or her need for the service has not diminished. Nor is it lawful for a local authority to plead lack of funds as a reason for not providing a service. Again, although it may recover charges for a service, a local authority may not refuse or withdraw a service if the disabled person is unable to pay.
Why, then, has the Minister not made this clear to Essex, where many disabled people over 80 years of age who are dependent on supplementary benefit, and without


diminution in need, now no longer have their home helps? Will he do so in this debate, and will he now respond to the protest of local authority leaders, of all political persuasions, who ask why they should be denied the resources they need to provide disabled people with the services that this House intended for them?
The Minister cannot deny that there is now a growing and grievious gap between the services that Parliament intended for disabled people and the provision made for them in many parts of Britain. In 1983-84, the net expenditure per head of population on services for physically and sensorily disabled people ranged from £3.91 in the London boroughs to £1.73 in the shire counties.
In London, Camden spent £8.38, compared with Sutton's 87p. In the south-west, Avon spent £3.49, while Cornwall spent £1·42. In Wales, West Glamorgan spent £3.34 and Dyfed £1.27. In the east midlands, Nottinghamshire spent £2.91 and Lincolnshire £1·52. In the west midlands, Wolverhampton spent £4·41 and Shropshire 80p.
How does the Minister justify those variations? As he knows, I quote from figures supplied by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Is he not disquieted by the institute's findings, and what action has he taken since they became known to him?
The Minister must be aware that this debate occurs at a time of very considerable anxiety about the effects for disabled people and their families of what the Government are proposing in their Green Paper "Reform of Social Security". Peter Large, of the Disablement Income Group, who has the respect of hon. Members in all parts of the House, has estimated that many disabled people on supplementary benefit now rely very heavily — to the extent of 20 to 30 per cent, of their total incomes—on payments for additional requirements to help offset the extra cost of disabled living. He refers, among other extra costs, to those for laundry in cases where the disabled person is incontinent, special diets, wear and tear of clothing and extra heating. He states:
The proposed income-support scheme will sweep away these payments for additional requirements, replacing them all by a special premium for chronically sick and disabled people. If the premium is anything less than 30 per cent, of the basic income support payment, disabled people will again be among the losers.
The House will recall that disabled people were the losers when the supplementary benefit scheme was simplified by the present Government in 1980. They were also among the losers when the available scale margin was increased from 50p to £1 and extended to reduce heating allowances in 1984. How much longer must they be the losers?
Even if the Minister cannot provide detailed figures, will he today at least try to give disabled people some reassurance about the percentage of the basic income support they can expect as a premium? Can he also give the House an assurance that the Government's proposals in the Green Paper will not be allowed to result in any reduction, in real terms, in the totality of expenditure on provision for disabled people and their families?
Dr. Peter Kemp, housing research fellow at the university of Glasgow, has said that industrial disablement pensioners could face cuts of up to £20 a week if the Government's proposed changes in housing benefit go through. Will the Minister comment on that, and, if he

disagrees with Dr. Kemp, will he give his own estimate of the effect on the industrially disabled of the Government's proposals?
As to the social fund which is proposed in the Green Paper, the Disability Alliance has said:
The scheme will mean degradation for claimants and DHSS staff. It will force claimants to beg at social security offices for payments they desperately need. As well as cutting their income, it will strip away their legal entitlement to payments which they presently have as of right.
The proposed social fund will be under the discretion of the local DHSS office and some payments will be repayable loans. The DHSS offices will be cash limited, so what will happen to disabled people who claim after their local office has run out of cash? With payments on a discretionary basis, the Disability Alliance wants to know how a local office will choose between Mr. Jones claiming for fares to visit his terminally sick wife in hospital and Mrs. Smith claiming for fares to visit her dying child? The Disability Alliance goes on to say:
"Claimants' humiliation will be heightened by proposals that DHSS staff will help them budget. This is a gross insult … which will be made worse in many cases by having to pay back loans to the DHSS itself."
How does the Minister respond to these comments on the Green Paper? He cannot deny that they come from people who are as well-informed as they are representative. Failure to respond to them today will deepen concern among people for whom needless worry piles handicap on handicap.
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has been in touch with me about the new board and lodging allowances for people on supplementary benefit. This was an issue that I raised in the House on 24 May, and most of the questions I put to the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, remained unanswered at the end of the debate. What RADAR says is that there is considerable alarm in the voluntary sector that the new board and lodging regulations as applied to residential and nursing care will lead to people being thrown out of homes when they can no longer afford to pay, or, if they are lucky, ending up permanently in hospital.
Local authorities are, of course, now in no position to pick up the pieces and RADAR states:
There is increasing evidence that the level of care which the best homes in the voluntary sector seek to provide cannot be provided within the limits set. Particular anger is directed at the different limits for disabled people according to whether they became disabled before or after pension age.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will respond to that statement also when he replies to the debate.
I urge the Minister today to assert the priority of the claims of disabled people. We have to look within groups as well as between them. Among the elderly, the disabled are more hard-pressed and have problems and needs over and above those of the generality of elderly people. If, in a one-parent family, the parent or child is disabled, that family will usually be worse off and more at risk than other one-parent families. The same applies within other groups and strongly emphasises the priority of the claims; of disabled people. It is also the answer to those who now demand more "savings" in expenditure on disabled people.
The calls for cuts in benefits, as for more flexibility in applying the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, have to be resisted in the interests both of disabled people and of the taxpayer. Most people with disabilities face a higher cost of living than other people. They do so with lower than average incomes. The services that Parliament


intended them to have under the 1970 Act are not a luxury or a privilege but a vital necessity if they are to live independently and as full members of society. There is ultimately no gain for the taxpayer in depriving them of those services. In fact, the cost of driving people into institutional care is often higher than that of allowing them to live, with the help of support services, in the community.
The description that I like best of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is that for disabled people it was a first step into the light. Everyone who worked for its enactment can rejoice in the fact that it has been a model for legislation in many other countries across the world.
I am delighted, as the Minister must be, that the debate coincides with the visit to Britain of a distinguished delegation of people who work in the field of rehabilitation in China. The delegation is here until 17 June and is led by Wang Luguang as a senior representative of the China Welfare Fund for the Handicapped. He is accompanied by Qu Degui, as director of the international department of the fund, and by their colleagues, Liu Jing, Huang Dashu, Wang Dajue and Gao Jian. The Minister and I, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South addressed them on their arrival in London on 4 June. They are here at the invitation of the British Council and the Sino-British Group on Rehabilitation, of which His Excellency the Chinese Ambassador and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are patrons.
The delegation's close interest in the relevance to China's disabled people of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been a source of special pleasure to many of their hosts here. Wang Luguang and his colleagues are our honoured guests, and I am sure that the House as a whole would want them to convey, on their return to China, our warmest best wishes to all their colleagues for success in their endeavours in the service of disabled people there.
One of the central purposes of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was to challenge what Sir William Oastler, talking of those who can afford every comfort, once called that
serene satisfaction with the status quo".
The Royal Assent to the Act was welcomed by informed people in the statutory and voluntary sectors alike. There is still much to do if all its objectives are to be achieved and, until every locality has a level of provision equal to that of the existing best, the battle for fuller implementation of the Act must and will go on. None of the very wide fellowship of people who helped to enact my Bill ever doubted the size and gravity of the task that we confronted. Our hope was that, by working together to change the law, we could also change the status quo for disabled people and end the "serene satisfaction" by which they were oppressed. That still has to be our resolve.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I, too, am very pleased that the House has the opportunity today to mark the 15th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the passage of which attracted considerable attention at the time and, as the right hon. Member for Manchester,

Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has very fairly recognised, received, has continued to receive and will continue to receive a very wide measure of all-party support.
The concepts which the Act embodied—being aware of the needs of disabled people, supporting them in their own homes, giving them greater assistance with mobility, and greater access to a range of everyday facilities— command very strong support in all parts of the House. I say without hesitation and with pleasure that it is appropriate that the debate should be opened by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, in view of his personal contribution and his continuing commitment to the purposes and working of the Act.
On hearing the right hon. Gentleman's historical account of the difficulties which attended the birth of the measure, I was left almost feeling that it is easier to review the whole of the social security system than to go through what the right hon. Gentleman went through in an earlier period of his life.
I, too, was very pleased to have the opportunity last week to join the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in meeting the deputation that is here from the China Welfare Fund for the Handicapped, and to be able to assure them that we in the United Kingdom will do everything we can to help them in any way we can with their efforts to develop services for disabled people in China.
I am particularly glad that there have already been contacts between those concerned with the question in China and the formidable group of people with interests in disabled people in Hong Kong, which I happened to visit last summer, including the well known Dr. Harry Fang, a former president of Rehabilitation International, who attaches great importance to building up the links between Hong Kong and China in this respect.
I am particularly happy that, as a result of a co-operative exercise in which a number of us have been engaged—certainly the three of us who were present at the China Welfare Fund for the Handicapped last week —we were able to make arrangements for the supply of a number of hearing aids to China. I hope that will be seen as a practical demonstration of our good will. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South for the part that he has played in that exercise.
I do not mean to diminish the importance of the individual details and provisions of the 1970 Act when I say that in many ways its greatest impact and importance has been in its effect on the awareness of the needs of disabled people, not just within this House or in Government but at every level in society. Indeed, there can be very few Acts of Parliament of what is essentially a rather specialist nature which have made, directly and indirectly, so considerable an impact, and whose title has become almost a household word.
The Act undoubtedly marks a significant milestone in the history of services for and of attitudes towards disabled people and, if I may change the metaphor, it has provided a foundation on which all succeeding Governments have sought to build.
Over the past 15 years, many hundreds of thousands of disabled people have gained not only from the greater development of direct practical help, such as domestic assistance in the home, house adaptations, aids, the provision of telephones and so on, but from those


provisions designed to open up opportunities and facilities for disabled people which have since been built on and supplemented by other developments.
Section 1 of the Act addresses itself to the importance of assessing the overall needs of disabled people and of ensuring that they are aware of the services available to them. Both those concepts have a wider application which the Government have sought and continue to seek to develop further. As the House knows, about 18 months ago we announced, together with the social security reviews, our intention to commission the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to conduct a new national survey to gain more up-to-date information about the extent of disablement and its effects. The last such survey, the well-known Amelia Harris survey, was carried out at about the time of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and is therefore about 15 years old. Much of the information that it gave us is out of date, and the survey has significant gaps, especially about disabled people in residential care. The new survey — the first major survey during that entire period—will help us to gain the sort of up-to-date information that we need for further planning for services and cash benefits for disabled people. In due course it will become an important part of our data base for carrying further the purposes which both sides of the House share.
A further important feature of the Act is its emphasis in section 2 on practical support for disabled people in their home, which goes closely with the concept of care in the community and the programmes to that end, which have subsequently been developed and reinforced. The Government—the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged this in a backhanded way — have sought to place growing emphasis on that through the development of joint planning, the extension of joint finance and the funding of pilot programmes. Those are all exercises in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has had a significant hand. We have given extra powers and extra cash to allow health authorities, local authorities and voluntary organisations to build and enlarge the care in the community programme.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that every possible recourse is made to the European Community on pilot projects? It is extremely keen on pilot projects for the handicapped, and we wish to tap every possible source.

Mr. Newton: I could hardly agree more with my hon. Friend's suggestion that we need to tap every possible source. To the extent that I or my hon. Friend can play a part in laying our hands on additional EC money for our community care purposes, she can be assured of our enthusiastic assistance and support. If with her experience and knowledge of the European scene she has any bright new ideas about how we can get more of that money, I hope that she will not hesitate to let one or both of us know of them. I assure her of a prompt response.
Regarding joint finance and care in the community, I re-emphasise the importance that we attach to the legislation which we passed in 1983, and which is beginning to come into effect. It ensures that voluntary bodies are represented on the joint consultative committee concerned with the care in the community programmes. I know from my constituency that that is beginning to

happen. The voluntary organisations attach importance to it, as do the Government. It is a fruitful development of the decision-making machinery in this area.
The 1970 Act also gave statutory recognition to the need for adequate access provision for the disabled, not merely to specialised health or social service buildings, but to all the general facilities open to the public. It would be an understatement to say that over the years a great deal of attention has been given to that issue, for example by the work of the silver jubilee committee on access and the committee on restrictions against disabled people. We as a Government attach great importance to the access issue. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his speech, it is one of the areas where the provisions of the 1970 Act did not go far enough.
The decision recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to amend the building regulations to ensure adequate access provision for disabled people to all shops, offices and single-storey public buildings was welcomed on all sides of the House and well beyond the House. Although I know that many would wish that we had already been able to go further, it has been firmly stated that my right hon. Friend hopes to extend those provision further when work on satisfactory means of escape requirements has been completed.
The access committee for England, which I established a little more than a year ago with DHSS funding by building on work by my predecessor my hon. Friend the Member for Honrsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), to whom I readily pay tribute, has made a considerable impact in its first year of operation, not least by drawing together consumers and providers of buildings in constructive debate about some of the complex issues involved. I have been immensely encouraged by the progress of that committee and its vigorous start. Indeed, it was a pleasure to me that the announcement about the building regulations was made at an important conference organised by the acces committee for England a few months ago. I have no doubt from the work that it has already undertaken that its activities will be of major benefit to all local access groups, now established throughout the country, in their efforts to improve access locally.
In having a hand in setting up the committee I was particularly concerned to ensure that the committee should include planners, designers, providers of buildings and a considerable number of the disabled who would represent the consumer voice. That reflects a theme of the 1970 Act —the need for the interests of the disabled themselves to be acknowledged, and wherever possible for them to participate in the decision-making processes. I am happy to say that that principle has been readily embraced not only in the Government, but in many other public and commercial areas, with examples far beyond the original confines of the Act.
The statutory requirements in the Telecommunications Act 1984, both for British Telecom to take account of the needs of disabled people and for the Director General to establish a committee to advise him of the needs of disabled people and elderly consumers, is a clear example. So too is the decision by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, whose long-term interest in the needs of the disabled is well known to the House, to establish an expert advisory panel on disability to help guide her Department's policies.
As I have ranged wide, I shall return to the specific provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Act, which deal with the practical support which local authority social services departments should be providing for disabled people in need. For many people those services have undoubtedly represented the most concrete and beneficial manifestation of the Act. It is perfectly proper that over the years those aspects have attracted most attention and interest from hon. Members, and today have brought many comments from the right hon. Gentleman.
I recognise that criticism has been voiced that local authority provision is not monitored closely enough by the Government, that restraints on local authority expenditure inhibit its power to meet the needs identified in that Act, and that the original Act needs to be reinforced in some way to remedy those alleged defects. On monitoring, local authorities are well aware of their duties under the Act, and it is clear that they take them seriously. Detailed guidance was issued to accompany the Act, and dealt with, for example, the way in which the numbers and needs of the disabled may be sought. At present I do not believe that there is a clear need for further detailed guidance. Apart from anything else, the Act leaves it to authorities to determine need in relation to individual cases, and how best to meet it. That is both right and an important principle.
Local authorities are the best judges of local circumstances, and are best able to assess the needs of the individual. Detailed guidance prepared by a Government Department, however well-intentioned, would not be an adequate substitute for on-the-spot decisions by the authorities that are closest to the needs of the indvidual and the services which exist in his area. More important, there is always a risk that minimum standards — in practice that is all that we could sensibly talk about—would be treated in some cases as maximum standards and would inhibit some of the developments that we would wish to see. They would restrict rather than enlarge the scope for flexibility and innovation.
Often, the results of innovation by some authorities and by voluntary organisations have been the spur to progress in this area. For example, some local authorities have been experimenting with different means of providing care in the home. There has also been a movement away from institutionalised and group provision for holidays towards more individual provision in mainstream holidays. There have been more partnership arrangements with voluntary organisations in the planning and delivery of services. I would not wish to inhibit such successful development by appearing to give guidance from the centre, which might all too easily become a straitjacket.
However, to acknowledge that local authorities are the best judges of local needs is not to absolve them of their statutory duties under the Act. We have always made that clear, and have always been prepared to pursue investigations where prima facie evidence is submitted to us that a local authority may be in default of its duty.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister have any comment to make on Wirral authority, which is in breach of its statutory responsibilities by not budgeting for adaptations?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to make a judgment such as he invites in an exchange

across the Floor of the House. I am aware of the comments that have been made about Wirral authority and, as he will know, we are making inquiries of the authority to enable us to judge the criticisms that have been made. If I can add to that when I respond to the debate later this evening, I shall, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is as much as I can sensibly say in response to his intervention now.

Mr. Field: I suspected that the Minister could not answer me now, but it would be helpful if he could give us an idea of when he expects to reply. We are debating the important anniversary of the Act, and in Wirral there is no money to carry out the adaptations that are an important part of the Act.

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's request, and if I can help him further at the end of the debate, I shall. However, he should understand that the inquiries that we make when we hear suggestions of a breach of statutory duty—there have been more than 20 over a fairly long period—take some time to carry out and involve us in considerable correspondence with authorities. If I cannot help him further today, I shall ensure that his query is answered as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made several observations about financial resources. It is obvious that local authorities must make difficult choices, as must central Government, at a time of budgetary and financial constraint. I must make the basic point that the Government believe that it is essential, in the interests of the economy and not least in the interests of restraining inflation, which must benefit the disabled, that local authority overall expenditure is controlled. The adoption of sensible priorities is in no way inconsistent with the proper provision of direct services to vulnerable groups such as the disabled.
I am strengthened in that view by the fact that the Audit Commission states that there is still scope for saving in local authority support and administrative costs. Until some of the local authorities which are complaining can convince us that they have examined the range of their services to ensure that they are delivering value for money, I should be somewhat sceptical about some of the claims that are made about their ability to provide the services about which we are talking today.
The Government believe that local authorities can continue to bear in mind the interests of vulnerable groups within the financial resources available to them. After all, local authority budgets for personal social services increased by 21 per cent, in cost terms between 1978–79 and 1984–85. That is a long way from the cuts about which we sometimes hear. Those figures are reflected in the fact that, between 1979–80 and 1983–84, expenditure by local authorities on personal aids increased by nearly 40 per cent. in cost terms, and the number of cases of such assistance increased by 37 per cent. During the same period, expenditure on assistance with providing telephones to the disabled and the elderly increased by nearly 12 per cent. in cost terms, and expenditure by local authorities on residential homes for the younger physically disabled, blind and deaf increased by nearly 31 per cent. in cost terms.
I shall require much more persuasion than the right hon. Gentleman was able to produce today before I am convinced that the resources made available by the


Government within their framework of policies make it impossible for well-organised local authorities to provide the services that the disabled require.
The right hon. Gentleman referred not only to the workings of the Act but to the Government's Green Paper on social security as it affects the disabled. There is no doubt that, alongside the improved services which we wish to offer and for which the Act has been an important part of the framework, the wider opportunities that we try to offer to the disabled, including improved access to buildings, the third main arm of the Government's policy towards the disabled must be the provision of an adequate framework of financial support. Without wishing to labour the Government's record in this area, I should say that we have increased expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled to £4 billion in 1984-85, which is more than 35 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978-79— the year before we took office. As part of that, we have improved the structure of benefits for the disabled, for example, by introducing the severe disablement allowance to replace the non-contributory invalidity pension, and by removing the invalidity trap, which kept many long-term sick and disabled people on the short-term lower rate of supplementary benefit rather than the higher long-term rate. I could mention several other points, including the improvement in the mobility allowance.
However, in response to the right hon. Gentleman's queries, I should start by saying that I hope that no one on either side of the House will attempt to suggest that there has been anything other than widespread dissatisfaction with the present supplementary benefit scheme. Hon. Members may have different views about the Government's proposals and about possible alternatives, but there can be only one view about the unsatisfactory nature of the present scheme. Everyone will have heard comments that it is too complicated for the staff, let alone claimants, to understand; that some aspects of the scheme — especially those relating to disability — can lead to intrusive and humiliating questioning; and that in the areas of greatest pressure, the present rules do not allow a sufficiently flexible response to individual need.
It is to meet those criticisms that the Green Paper proposes a major reform, which will replace the present system with two new schemes. The first is the new income support scheme to provide regular weekly incomes for claimants. All claimants will receive a personal allowance based on their age. For those with families, there will continue to be children's scale rates, and, in addition, there will be a new flat rate family premium. I should make it clear, because I am not sure whether it has yet been fully appreciated, that where a family has a child in receipt of attendance or mobility allowance, the family will receive a double family premium.
For groups with extra needs, such as the long-term sick and disabled, there will be a further system of premium rates. On top of the basic personal allowance would be a premium for all pensioners, which would be higher for the over-80s, for lone parents and for the long-term sick and disabled. For this purpose, all claimants receiving invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance, attendance allowance and mobility allowance, as well as those who are blind, would get the disablement premium automatically. There would be no separate rules about time on benefit.
Where the claimant's partner is getting one of these benefits, the couple would get double benefit premium,

regardless of the status of the claimant. In both cases, where the claimant or partner does not, for one reason or another, qualify for one of these passporting benefits, there would be an alternative link to benefit—28 weeks incapacity for work would also qualify the claimant for the disability premium.
I shall attempt to list briefly the advantages of these proposals. First, they will be clearer and more comprehensible and will avoid, as a routine matter of setting basic benefit rates, the sort of questioning, for example, about laundry needs, and conceivably about bathing, that can occur. Secondly, they will be more consistent with the pattern of invalidity and disablement benefits and in particular fairer to those who may fall narrowly outside the qualifying criteria for mobility allowance and attendance allowance that are used for certain passporting purposes to some of the additional payments.
Thirdly, for those who qualify by incapacity—this is an important point—the proposals will mean getting the premium rate after 28 weeks, whereas at present such people have to wait a year before going on to the longer-term scale rate. Some 20,000 long-term sick and disabled people have been in that position for between six months and one year.
Fourthly, the blind will qualify automatically for the premium, which is likely to be of particular advantage to those who are not judged to be incapable of work and do not therefore at present receive the longer-term scale rate.
Fifthly, because in setting the premium we shall have regard to the existing expenditure on additional payments, the new system is likely to do more to help the 50,000 or so long-term sick and disabled claimants of supplementary benefit who at present receive no such additional payments. We have heard a good deal both in the debate and in other quarters about those who receive a number of additional payments. However, 50,000 people get no additional payments and therefore clearly stand to have their position assisted by our proposals.
Sixthly, as I have already made clear, families with children who are disabled as measured by mobility' or attendance allowance receipt will automatically receive the double family premium.
Seventhly, I repeat that the disability premium will be payable to claimants with disabled partners on the more widely measured basis that I have described, instead of being limited mainly to the circumstances of the claimant. To put that point more clearly and specifically in terms that I am aware will be picked up by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that means that an unemployed claimant with a disabled wife as measured in the way that I have described will receive the disablement premium, whereas at present he would normally be on the short-term scale rate of benefit.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman has clearly spoken about the premium being automatic. Does this mean that, over the whole range of new proposals, there will be many fewer means-tested benefits and less requirement for people to be able to show that they have a deserving case in the various categories?

Mr. Newton: We are in danger of some confusion of terminology. We are basically talking about a means-tested benefit in the replacement for supplementary benefit. However, it is clear that, because of the


simplification of the benefit structure to incorporate the disablement premium and the extent to which that disablement premium will go automatically to a fairly wide group of claimants who are manifestly long-term sick or disabled, there will be a reduction in the amount of intrusive questioning that such people have to face before gaining entitlement.

Mr. Jack Ashley: What exactly will the double premium be?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have made it clear that for the present we are debating the proposed structure of income support and that until the details of the structure have been settled following consultation, it would not be sensible to seek to elaborate specific benefit rates that at any rate would not be coming into effect until April 1987. I fear that I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman with a specific figure for the family premium.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On the point made by Peter Large, is it possible for the Minister to speak about percentages? As he knows, the Green Paper is long on ideology and very short on figures. The Minister cannot help us with figures, but he should be able to help us to some extent with percentages, and to reply to the important point made on behalf of the Disablement Income Group, among other organisations.

Mr. Newton: I accept that my life would be easier if I were able to respond in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but the difference between giving percentages of basic benefit rates and actual figures is not large enough to enable me to respond differently from the way in which I replied to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) or to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) who asked me somewhat similar questions on Thursday last week.

Mr. Frank Field: rose —

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman and I had about 10 minutes on this subject last Thursday, and I do not wish to detain the House as long this afternoon.

Mr. Field: I shall try to be more brief. Is it possible to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) earlier? Will the Minister give a guarantee that no disabled people on supplementary benefit will be made worse off by these moves?

Mr. Newton: I have given signs that significant numbers of disabled people are likely to gain within such a structure but I cannot, for obvious reasons, put figures on the numbers. However, our intention will be to make sure that at the point of change in the system, there will be protection against cash losers in income support. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that all disabled people will be gainers and none will be losers in cash terms if no other considerations apply. However, I can say that, to the extent that there might be some who would otherwise be losers because of what I would see as a fairer distribution of the newly structured system, it would be our approach to ensure full cash protection on

the point of transition. I hope that it is reasonably clear to the hon. Member for Birkenhead and will be thought by the House to be a sensible policy.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe asked about industrial disablement benefit, and the effect for people receiving that benefit on their housing benefit entitlement. Again, it is impossible for me to speculate in detail about the effects on particular people of benefit rates, taper rates and the rest that have not yet been settled and could be settled only once the structure of the system is settled.
However, I hope that it will be clear to the House when I say that one of the key features of the Government's proposed reforms in the Green Paper is a common basis of assessing income and of setting the benefit structure that carries through from income support to housing benefit and the proposed new family credit. The point in that which is relevant to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is that the disablement premium will automatically carry through into what are now called the housing benefit needs allowances because the income support rate in the new income support system will form the needs allowances in the reformed housing benefit system. So the needs of disabled people are also clearly reflected in our proposals for housing benefit.
I want to deal with two other matters affecting the income support scheme. First, we are very conscious of the need to encourage disabled people to remain active to the maximum possible extent. The present earnings rules can undoubtedly be a discouragement for disabled claimants to earn more than £4 a week. We are proposing that single claimants or families receiving the disability premium should be able to earn a significantly higher amount—we have in mind £15—before their benefit is reduced. We believe that this will be welcome to many sheltered workshops, and I know from my own direct contacts that the British Institute of Industrial Therapy will feel that that helps its efforts to ensure a degree of active work and help for many disabled people.
The second matter touches on the capital rule. We are proposing to end the present £3,000 cut-off and to substitute a taper between £3,000 up to a final cut-off at £6,000. Although I do not want to exaggerate this in this context, from the many representations made to me over recent years I believe that that will be widely welcomed not just by claimants generally but particularly by the parents of many mentally handicapped youngsters who set out deliberately to provide some capital support for their children when they themselves have passed on. I hope that that will be a help to them.
Our proposals are concerned mainly with the structure of the new benefit system at this stage, and decisions on specific rates cannot be taken until nearer the time of implementation. However, I emphasise that the Green Paper makes it clear that one of the purposes of this reform is to give greater recognition to the needs of people who are disabled. It is our firm belief that the new structure will make that easier to achieve.
I ought to respond to what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said about the social fund, which is the second arm of our proposed replacement of supplementary benefit and which will provide help with budgeting difficulties, funeral expenses and financial crises. Especially relevant to this debate is that it will also seek to provide help with care in the community needs. At present the scheme contains in the rules on single payments a number of provisions to help vulnerable people


to maintain themselves in the community. But, frankly, these areas can get lost in the mass of detailed rules which apply to the system. It can mean that many people may not know of the help available and that the process of decision making is insufficiently able to take account of all the circumstances of certain claimants such as disabled people. In proposing the social fund we want to give greater emphasis to these areas so that the needs of disabled people and others can be handled more flexibly and with greater regard to individual circumstances.
We shall continue to provide help which allows disabled people to move from institutions into the community. We shall continue to provide help with moving and other expenses, such as furnishing needs, for those setting up on their own. We shall continue to help with moving expenses for disabled people to go to more suitable accommodation such as sheltered housing. We shall also continue to help people to visit sick and disabled relatives in hospital.
In view of the anxieties that have been expressed I should make it clear that it is not intended that help of that sort should necessarily be made by way of loan. For the most part, help with moving out of hospital and re-establishing in a community care context would normally be more appropriately met by a grant rather than a loan. There will be areas where we hope that disabled people will benefit from the budgeting and loan-making provisions of the social fund, but in the area of community care plainly it will be more appropriate to do so by way of grant.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The Minister may be aware that I am rather more sympathetic to the idea of the social fund than even some of my hon. Friends, partly because I have a naively optimistic view of DHSS staff and the way that they may operate it, given the chance. Will the Minister help me by saying whether grants under the social fund will be appealable to a tribunal on the grounds of reasonableness, say, and that it will be possible for those seeking to help disabled people to appear before such a tribunal and assist claimants if they feel that the fund is not being sensitively administered?

Mr. Newton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. They give me some encouragement because I respect his judgment in these matters. He will be aware from his evident reading of the Green Paper that we have said that our intention with the social fund will be to make it subject to some form of speedy and flexible system of review within the Department rather than by the semi-judicial process of appeal which currently characterises decisions under the social security regulations. In my view, it is likely to be incompatible with our aim of sensitive and flexible decision making, taking account of the circumstances of an individual's need and not simply trying to apply detailed regulations, as happens with the present single payments regulations, to establish alongside that all the rigidities of a semi-judicial or judicial appeal process.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Can the Minister help me further by saying whether it will be possible to include advocacy in that? Many people in these quite extreme needs find it difficult to present their cases. Will there be the possibility of advocacy by local councillors, social workers or welfare rights workers?

Mr. Newton: That is a matter to which we shall wish to give further thought during the process of working up the social fund proposals. I must again unashamedly fall back on the fact that this is a Green Paper on all parts of which we shall welcome the views of others, including the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). I shall want to give further thought to his question, but my initial reaction is that I very much hope it will be possible. It is in line with our general wish to ensure that decision making in this area incorporates some of the strengths— I hope not the weaknesses—of social work practice as distinct from rigidly applying social security regulations.
Beyond those reflections on the present single payments system, we wish to work towards developing this part of the new arrangements to promote further our community care objectives. The fund represents in significant ways a new approach in social security administration. It will be important to avoid the risk of being over-ambitious from the start, but I emphasise that it is our intention to enable the system to contribute more effectively than it often does now to a sensible mix of cash and care for vulnerable groups in the community.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West asked about staff. It is also our intention that these arrangements shall be run by specialist staff with special training. We have a core of such expertise at the moment because of the build-up since 1980 of the so-called special case officers who have been concerned with handling the more difficult cases. They have been encouraged in recent years to build up contacts with social service and health professionals. We shall seek to build on that experience, to give them training in handling the more sensitive issues affecting individual claimants and to enable them to serve as a readily identifiable focus for the other welfare interests which may be involved in helping disabled claimants.
We are looking for a system which will be more sensitive than the present one, and not more intrusive. We aim to match the skills needed to apply judgment in handling these community care issues and a response which is less bound by detailed rules and restrictions. We are talking about trained specialist staff handling a limited number of cases with more freedom of manoeuvre than is possible at present.
If we are able successfully to build up those proposals alongside the clearer, fairer and more comprehensible system of income support which I described earlier, we shall both have done a significant service to disabled people in relation to the benefits system and, in doing so, have underpinned those wider objectives of making this a better society for disabled people, which were the foundations of the Act for which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was responsible 15 years ago.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The Minister for Social Security has unsuccessfully tried to ride two horses at once. He has tried to defend the savage local authority expenditure cuts by the Government. At the same time, he has tried to claim that he is defending the rights of disabled people. The two are incompatible. He cannot support the local authority expenditure cuts because they have severely damaged the living standards of the disabled. If he supports the cuts, he must acknowledge, not gloss over the fact, that they have been severely damaging to disabled people. That was the first two-horse ride that the hon. Gentleman tried to take.
The Minister tried to do it on another occasion. He tried to assure us that his review will not damage the interests of the disabled, but at the same time he tried to keep the review figures secret. That, too, is incompatible. He cannot assure the House that the disabled will not be damaged if he is unable to provide figures. We do not know what the figures are. Therefore, the Minister made a sanguine speech which was unjustified by its content. He pointed to the numerous advances that have been made, but they are limited and minor advances. They do not amount to a comprehensive package for the disabled.
The Minister is capable of making good speeches— he is one of the few good Ministers in this terrible Government—but on this occasion he did not make a good speech because he was unable to defend this Government's record and simultaneously to do his job successfully as a Minister with responsibility for the disabled. I intend to deal in more detail with some of the points that he made, but first may I say that I agree with the Minister about the importance of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which was piloted through the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). That Act was a great landmark for disabled people in Britain and, as we have heard from our great friends in China and, indeed, across the world, it has created new opportunities. It gave positive and constructive help to disabled people in need; it changed the climate of the whole country towards disabled people. It was an outstanding achievement, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe can be proud.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was passed in 1970. Today, in stark contrast to those heady days, there is a mood of deep disillusionment that has to be contrasted with the picture painted a few minutes ago by the Minister for Social Security. Not just a general abstract feeling of disappointment but in some cases real, deep and grievous hardship is being faced by some disabled people. The tragedy is that that hardship is often unnecessary.
I have recently spoken to some severely disabled people and to three great experts on disablement: first, my wife Pauline; secondly, Molly Meacher of the British Association of Social Workers; and, thirdly, Peter Large of the Disabled Income Group and the Disabled Professionals Group. As all hon. Members know, Peter Large is both disabled and an expert. His views, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has said, carry very great weight in the House.
All three of those experts have spoken to me of the changed mood among the disabled—of their battles to get any help at all from some local authorities and of the hardship now being endured by many thousands of disabled people. Despite the Minister's speech, that is the reality of disability in Britain today.
One of the cases quoted to me by Peter Large illustrates the suffering of disabled people that can be attributed to the cuts made by local authorities. This case will be familiar to the Minister. It concerns a woman, a tetraplegic, who is being cared for by a very elderly mother whose ability to cope is decreasing week by week. The local authority has tried to cut her home help, and the time of the nurses looking after her, who put her to bed at night, has been cut by more than half. Although her situation has

improved recently, she still has to stay in bed throughout the weekend—fancy that—because she can get no help at all then. Her mother is too frail to use the hoist. She has been warned by the local authority that the present arrangements are certain for only six months and that thereafter she could be forced into an institution.
As Peter Large says:
For far too many people, care in the community at the moment is an ad hoc, stressful, hand-to-mouth fight for survival —an unhappy existence, often lacking dignity and privacy.
That is a sombre, and, in my view, realistic appraisal by one of the greatest experts on the disabled. He pays tribute to that woman's Member of Parliament and to the Minister with responsibility for the disabled for their help. He says that their help for that woman has been very constructive, but that the personal intervention of the Minister is not the right way to run the welfare state. I agree with him. That should not be necessary. We should not need to call upon the Minister to rectify a grievous anomaly. Even after the Minister has acted, that woman is still confined to bed throughout the weekend. The Member of Parliament has done what he can and the Minister has done what he can, but that problem still has to be faced. I am not saying that that particular example applies to millions of people, but I believe that similar things are happening to many people throughout Britain.
The truth is that many disabled people in Britain are today living in fear. They fear what will be cut next. They have neither confidence nor peace of mind. They fear where the cuts will fall. They are consumed with anxiety about how long their family or the carers can cope without adequate help. Those problems are exacerbated by the proper policy that is being pursued by the Minister of expelling people from institutions and trying to integrate them into the community. The policy is breaking down because proper provision for those people is not being made in the community. They are being denied adequate community care.
One of the original aims of my right hon. Friend's Act was to make it easier for the disabled to obtain the bas•ic help that they require, such as home help, aids and adaptations, but it has become a nightmare of complexity and a veritable Grand National of obstacles to be negotiated by people who are very severely handicapped. Such people are often not given information about their entitlements. They should receive information, because without it they do not know what to ask for or to whom to turn. However, when they are told of their entitlements, they face arguments as to whether they need the help, aid or adaptation. If they win that battle, they then have to be assessed by an occupational therapist. But there is a great shortage of occupational therapists, so they have to wait. It is a national scandal that there should be a shortage of such people. Even if the disabled win that battle and are assessed, they may be told that the aid, help or adaptation is not yet available, which means a further long wait.
The lesson to be drawn from those points and from the experience of many people is that life may be for living, but for far too many disabled people it is merely for. existing. It is not the local authority that is mainly to blame for such a deplorable situation, but the Government. They must accept the responsibility. The Government's battles with local authorities are familiar to hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, their financial support for


local authorities has been slashed from 60 per cent. in 1980–81 to 49 per cent. now. The Government are responsible for that savage cut.
Local authorities vary greatly in their attitude towards the disabled. Unfortunately, the Minister was far too sanguine about local authorities. He said that they were the best judges. That may be true in general, but it overlooks the fact that there are many negligent, lazy, greedy, selfish and stupid local authorities that do not care about the disabled. We must face that fact. We must do as we always do, and pay tribute to local democracy, but let us simultaneously recognise that there are bad local authorities that give the disabled in their areas a rotten deal. We should be doing something about them.
Some of us, including the Minister, have argued about the disparate provision of local authorities and called for action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe quoted some figures. Perhaps the Minister will comment on them at the end of the debate. The national average for local authority expenditure on the disabled is £2·07 per head of the population. But perhaps the Minister will comment on other local authorities, such as Sutton which spends 87p, Bury which spends 86p, and Oxfordshire, which is even worse, which spends 75p. How can one defend local authorities that are evidently neglecting the problems and difficulties of severely disabled people, some of whom may be imprisoned in bed all weekend and may have to look to an elderly mother to work a hoist which she is too frail to do?
I could cite many more examples, but I do not want to be emotional. I want, instead, to be practical. I have referred to the genuine practical problems and difficulties being faced by human beings. When we use the umbrella term "the disabled," we are really talking about individuals who suffer grievously. We should attack those local authorities that have neglected their responsibilities to them.
In the Minister's speech, I noticed a regrettable dichotomy in his attitude towards local authorities that he felt had been overspending. He implied that we could not allow authorities to waste money—that they should be businesslike, prune their expenditure, or conduct their business properly. But that attitude should be compared to his attitude towards their decisions on the disabled. On the one hand, the Minister seems to be ready to condemn local authorities if he feels they are extravagant, but, on the other, he is rather complacent if he feels that they are not fulfilling their duties to the disabled.
The Minister implied that we should leave things to the local authorities because they are the best judges of what should be done. That is an unfortunate attitude. The Government are eager to intervene when they think that local authorities are spending too much, but there are never any stern ministerial statements threatening penalties for local authorities that spend too little on the disabled. There should be. The Minister has powers. I accept that he makes investigations, but only about individual cases, and they do not affect the generality of disabled people. The Minister should get the Secretary of State to use his great powers and to take action against recalcitrant and negligent local authorities.
The fundamental issue is one of cash, and the omens for the disabled are grim. The Minister has discussed the new scheme, and he recognises that many severely disabled people rely on supplementary benefit and extra payments just to subsist. I think that 80 per cent. of

disabled people on supplementary benefit receive those additional payments. But the Government have plans to abolish those additional payments and to replace them with a higher level of income support. Indeed, I felt very uneasy when the Minister negatively responded to my request for figures. But figureless proposals are meaningless. It is just possible that the average may suit the average person, but disabled people are not average, and their exceptional needs will draw heavily on the social fund. However, that social fund is cash-limited, and when it runs out periodically, those requiring help will presumably receive the same response as Old Mother Hubbard. That would be a sad response to make to people who are in great need.
Disabled people are also very worried about the Government's "enabling" theme for local authorities. Many of them fear that it shows a lack of commitment. I think that they are right. The Government are encouraging local authorities to duck the issue and are failing to extend the necessary and proper pressure on behalf of disabled people. Fine-sounding words from Ministers cannot disguise a lack of conviction or commitment. I do not level that charge at the Minister for Social Security, because he does his best, but in general the Government are failing the disabled. Many of the speeches made about the disabled do not reflect the passionate commitment and determination to act which should be there.
Voluntary organisations are admirable institutions, but they are not renowned for working together. Some of the bickering between them causes heart searching among those of us who are active on behalf of disabled people.
It is, therefore, a demonstration of how worried the organisations have become that they have formed an association called the Voluntary Organisations Social Services Group, which is determined to ensure that voluntary organisations should not become tools of the Government. It knows that the Government are turning from proper local authority provision to excessive reliance on voluntary organsiations and it rightly insists that any special programme funding should be supplementary and not a replacement for local authority services.
Disabled people and voluntary organisations are fighting back against the current disturbing trends. They reject the view implied by the Minister—I deplore his implication — that the Act is laudable, but not affordable. The Act is the law, and the law should be obeyed and enforced. It is the Minister's duty to ensure that the law is enforced, and he will be failing in his duty if he does not ensure that.
We need a number of clear and positive steps from the Government. First, the Act must be enforced, and heavy penalties must be imposed on those who break the law.
Secondly, we need a code of practice for local authorities on the provision of services for disabled people. The British Association of Social Workers produced such a code in 1983, and I hope that the Minister will consider its general application, because it would bring Scrooge-like local authorities into line. The code should include a specific requirement for the provision of information. The DIAL system — the disablement information and advice line — is demonstrating how effectively that can be done.
Thirdly, we need an alternative to the creasing, groaning machinery of getting help to disabled people. Gearing up the whole Heath Robinson contraption of local authority services to provide, say, a bath rail belongs not to pre-1970 but to pre-1870.


Fourthly, we need greater participation by disabled people in the decision-making process.
The paternalistic days are over and the involvement of disabled people results in better decisions and preserves dignity. The centres for independent living set a fine example in the sharing of decision making and service delivery between local authorities and disabled people. If those centres are properly funded, they can provide great opportunities for many disabled people.
Disabled people have not only a claim, but a right, to participation in the making of decisions that affect them. They have a great deal to offer and they are willing to offer it. I hope that the House will not turn them down, but will give them an opportunity to play a major role in their own affairs.
We need change, and the debate should mark the moment of change, when the Government began to act decisively on behalf of disabled people and when disabled people played a much larger role in their own destinies.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is a rare privilege for me to be fourth in a debate in which the three previous speakers have a record on this subject which I should like to match when I have been here as long as they have.
I pay special tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). People all over the world know what a tremendous amount of work he put into the creation of the Act. In some ways, he is a remarkable model to new Members, such as myself, who are told when we come to the House of the dangers of not specialising.
On the other hand, it must be said that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) are in danger of that other peril against which new Members are warned, which is taking one small corner of the whole fabric of society which—mixing my metaphors—could be a bottomless pit and insisting at every turn that all the resources available for the betterment of society should be directed to that corner.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, because it is an old trick to try to differentiate between a good Minister and a bad Government. The Minister represents a Government under whom expenditure on the chronically sick and disabled has reached previously unknown heights and has grown in real terms by percentages of which any Government have a right to feel proud.
I accept that there are local authorities whose record in this, as in many other matters, leaves much to be desired, but I am nervous of the suggestion that central Government should dictate exactly how much should be spent or what resources should be involved in every individual case. The need to look wider than just one's own preoccupation does not belittle the importance of the disabled, but it is necessary to remember other needs.
My constituency spans two district councils. For the 10th year running, one of those councils has set its rate at the same level. As a consequence, in a pocket of high unemployment in a prosperous part of the country, unemployment is beginning to fall because employers are moving into the area, partly because the rate is not only

stable, but is extraordinarily low. That is a social good which will have an impact on the disabled, as on other people.
Regrettably, I shall not be able to stay for much of the rest of the debate, because I have to go to the annual general meeting of the Community Service Volunteers, of which I have the honour to be a trustee. That organisation is relevant to the debate, because, among other pioneering efforts, it has pioneered the exciting experiment of independent living for the disabled, under which young volunteers live in the same house as severely disabled persons and help them to cope with the difficulties of their independence. I echo the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South when I say that the volunteers undoubtedly learn more than the disabled person about what is needed in the partnership.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Would my hon. Friend like to pay tribute to another aspect of community service volunteers' work? The able-to-help scheme allows disabled volunteers a chance to be the volunteers rather than the recipients of voluntary effort.

Mr. Rowe: I am of course delighted to pay tribute to that work. What is being done is a clear lesson that the disabled have as much to offer the able-bodied as the able-bodied have to offer the disabled. One of the essential features of this scheme is that local authorities need to respond to some of the difficulties with greater sophistication. I am sure the House knows that there was a tragic incident of a volunteer watching a disabled person die in peculiarly unhappy circumstances. The local authority, the volunteer and everyone involved was still so new to the scheme that they did not grasp some of the dangers in the experiment. It says a great deal for the maturity of the CSV and the local authority that the scheme did not die as a result of that unfortunate accident, but rather that lessons are being carefully applied to future efforts.
There is one minor but important point which I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister. Although he has given the official reply, I hope that he will once again consider the matter. Let me cite the example of a couple in my constituency. The man is 100 per cent. disabled and his wife is unable to take any form of employment because she is caring for her husband. By frugal management she has managed to save some of the benefits which accrue to her family each week, and was looking to take out an insurance policy for the unhappy day, which is likely to come before her own death, when her husband dies. It transpires that, no matter where she turns or how she does it, the surrender value of any insurance policy that she takes out will be counted against her benefit entitlement.
Although I welcome the intention of the Green Paper to raise the disregard from £3,000 to £6,000, will my hon. Friend look again at those rare cases where there is 100 per cent. disability in the household and consider allowing some disregard on this so-called capital sum, which is a capital sum only in theory, especially if some form of caveat is entered against the possibility of borrowing against it.

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend courteously said that he might not be able to be here at the end of the debate, perhaps I might ask him whether his constituent is aware


of the current £1,500 exemption on the surrender value on life assurance policies, which is part of the present capital rules.

Mr. Rowe: I think that she is aware of it, but I cannot be absolutely sure. Even so, the impression was that it would not take very long to build up a policy entitlement which would overtake virtually all of the disregards. It seems hard that people who forswear present pleasure for future frugality should be penalised in this way.
It is important that resources be made available for the disabled. Without money, comparatively little can be done. However, it is erroneous to believe that only money is required. We need a change in the attitude of society. Perhaps I might give a small but pertinent example. It is strange how reluctant house builders are to consider the possibility of building the kind of home that they build for young couples, which incorporate features that would enable the homes to be used by the disabled. I do not believe that any young couple, glad to have their first home, would find slightly wider than average doors or electric sockets half way up the wall a major impediment to their happiness. It is much cheaper to build in the flexibility than to make modifications. Such a simple adaptation on the part of society would meet the needs of the disabled and others.
I strongly welcome the recently introduced extension of the joint financing arrangements, which will allow joint finance to continue for 13 years in some cases. Decanting disabled people into the community is an immensely important issue, but there is an evangelism about some of those who believe in getting rid of institutions. If we are not careful, we will find that people for whom the community is not ready and who find it impossible to adjust are put into the community. That does not diminish the enormous importance of taking those huge institutions, often of Victorian origin, and reallocating them in other ways to the benefit of the Health Service and social services, thus making it possible for the disabled to live within the community. The recently improved joint financing arrangements give tremendous help to that.
Another commercial. I have in my constituency the headquarters of only one national voluntary organisation. It is small but of fundamental importance and is called the Association of Carers. It has just received its first assistance from the Government. We welcome that. It is designed to make it easier for the army of men and women —mostly women—who have devoted their lives to the care of disabled or handicapped people, to articulate their needs and to describe the support that they require. Much of what they have to tell the Government has been greeted with considerable sympathy by my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a long way to go before the disabled receive the kind of dignified treatment which we would all like to see. The Government have nothing of which to be ashamed. They have made enormous advances, with the assistance of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, in the introduction of which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe played an important part.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I do not regard myself as a centrist but I shall not go as far as the forthright criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and I go further than the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).

I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent that we must not enforce nationally what we cannot persuade people of the need to do locally. If we cannot persuade recalcitrant local authorities to spend on what we believe they should spend on, it is up to us and our colleagues locally to persuade people in the area that they should support expenditure on means of assisting disabled people. We must create a resonance locally rather than think that we can do things centrally by forcing action on local government.
I am sometimes anxious that, in debates on social services and social welfare, the Chamber is rather cosy. Those right hon. and hon. Members who attend are anxious about the disabled, and their attendance hides the fact that there are other hon. Members who are not as interested and who do not have the same determination to fight for the disabled.
It is a strange paradox that although the Minister can give global figures for expenditure and cite straightforward cash increases we all find that in practice many needs are not being met. Perhaps higher expectations and greater information about what should be available mean that these needs come to the fore more than in the past, but I hope that the Minister will examine the situation carefully and not hide behind national figures when hon. Members are being bombarded constantly with cases of apparently simple needs not being met at the local level.
In Thursday's debate on the problems of the elderly, I cited two cases of linkage which I regarded as unsatisfactory and in which I believed that better services could be provided without additional expenditure. One concerned the vast cost of wholesale slum clearance and rebuilding. The other concerned the interaction of the social services, social security, the voluntary organisations and the National Health Service to assist individuals. Today I shall give one instance in which linkage is not working as it should for the disabled.
I am concerned to find that in some instances non-teaching assistants provided in schools are being withdrawn or are not following through to assist young people who move on to other schools. It is hard to dispute the statements of local authorities about the limited resources currently available making it extremely difficult to continue providing extra services which in virtually every case we would all regard as valuable and necessary to enable disabled people to blossom to their full potential in the education environment.
I, too, wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I was not in the House in 1970, but I appreciate the problems that he must have faced and the last-minute fears that he must have felt about whether his Bill would finally become an Act. The right hon. Gentleman never misses an opportunity to put the case for the disabled and it is to his credit that he is not deterred by the risk of wearying people with a recital of the same facts and cases but ploughs on consistently.
The first election that I fought was for Leeds city council in 1968. Early on in my campaign I was brought starkly up against the problems of disabled people. As I canvassed in the streets of Leeds a message was brought to me asking me to call at a certain house to discuss the problems faced by a family with a mentally handicapped daughter. Without feeling that I was being particularly brave or deserving of credit, I duly called on the family and was horrified at the amazement of the parents when I did so. They told me that all too often the mention of


mental handicap meant that no one turned up. That was an astonishing comment on the state of affairs in society at that time.
In the 15 years since the Act was passed, a great deal has been achieved in helping many disabled people to live almost completely normal lives in society simply because attention has been paid to providing greater access for them.
Another aspect of the Act which has not been fulfilled concerns the need for a better census by every local authority of the number of disabled people in its area. As far as I am aware, very few authorities carry out a proper census so they are unable properly to assess the provisions required. I cited the case of a rubella-affected child in Leeds who was very severely handicapped. She was deaf and blind and had a heart murmur. The authorities said that they would not provide a rubella unit because there were not enough rubella-affected children in the catchment area to justify such action. However, the parents of rubella-affected children in the area knew the precise numbers. On a certain day in Leeds the parents and the rubella-affected children all got together with the policy-makers from the local authority, both officers and councillors. As a result of that meeting, a rubella unit was built, attached to a school for people with hearing defects, and it has proved a great success. The census is a crucial tool if one is to make proper provision for disabled people.
I want to develop the whole problem of linkage and local authorities. One can place too much emphasis on the need to spend money. It is dangerous to make a statement like that in the House as it may be pounced on by the Minister and his colleagues as implying a need to spend less money or not to spend money where it is needed. I am not suggesting that. In many cases there is a need to provide cash to assist people. Sometimes, however, we do not look at a problem in the round to see how different Government Departments are affected and where their responsibilities lie.
The reduction or lack of expansion in home help services is not justifiable in financial terms. Looked at in the round, the lack of home help services probably causes greater expenditure elsewhere by accelerating the need for disabled people to be taken into institutional care. The home help service is one of the cheapest and most cost-effective services we have. The kind of people who are home helps, both male and female these days, are people who if they could afford not to be paid to do their work would willingly carry it out for nothing. I am sure many hon. Members have experienced, as I have, telephone calls to their homes at night and at weekends from home helps on behalf of their clients. They do this quite apart from their paid duties. It is a splendid service. I suspect that the home help service may thus even create a profit in sheer cash terms.
The way in which we help the unemployed through the Manpower Services Commission schemes is not cost effective and could be improved to the benefit of all concerned. I have previously mentioned the welfare maintenance and supply group in Bradford. That group of 12 disabled men met through the social contacts of disabled folk and found that they all had an interest in craft skills, so they decided to get together to make aids and adaptations for disabled people. They managed in the first year through the usual 100 per cent. MSC grant towards

all the labour costs, but the MSC rules mean that no money can be kept by the project. That is crazy if one is trying to encourage people to be self-supporting.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is not present as it would gladden her heart to hear that it was then suggested that the EEC would make funds available to carry the project on, the local authority bridging the gap between MSC and EEC funding. Paradoxically, despite being a larger organisa-tion, the EEC is more flexible in giving grant to such projects and it was able to work in conjunction with the project, covering a declining percentage of the labour bill according to manufactured goods sold and the contracts for adaptations secured by the group.
As local council for voluntary service secretary, I thought that the group would probably survive with a grant of 40 per cent. of the wages bill, the rest being made up through the open market. In fact, the group is now working on a mere 20 per cent. subsidy. With that kind of flexibility, a 20 per cent. subsidy on the wage bill can enable 12 disabled people to fend for themselves and work in the community at a cost far less than that of having them unemployed and paying them 100 per cent. of all the multifarious benefits that the Minister has outlined today. These schemes have vision and if one considers the linkage between provisions they are both cost effective and beneficial to the individuals concerned.
There has been much criticism from various sources of the fact that, once held, international years are often forgotten, but such criticism is not always necessarily justified. When such a year works well and local committees are established, there is the possibilibity of continuing the momentum in beneficial ways. In the context of the International Year of Disabled People, many schemes were established—for example, access guides and information guides, which have since been updated —which have continued ever since. I am pleased that groups such as DIAL — Disabled Information Advice Line which was set up by disabled people for disabled people—have been able to maintain their funding. In many respects, the transportation side of the problem also burgeoned during that year.
I hate to say it, but it looks as though some of the community transport projects, such as dial-a-ride, will be hard hit as a result of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, because the money received from hiring charges was underpinned by grant aid from the transport bodies. It would be a shame if such projects were now to disappear.
It is important to look at the implications of grant aid. It should not be shuffled from one Government Department to another. As to ways of achieving innovation, I am well aware that some DHSS section 64 grants have been very much appreciated and have done a great deal to assist voluntary bodies to provide a different style and character of service than that provided by the state, whether centrally or locally. I am glad that there is an increased ministerial awareness of the need not to confine such grant aid to year-on-year funding.
Sometimes it is almost self-fulfilling for Ministers to say, "But you do not get the same kind of secure provision or calibre of staff," but by and large, we shall not get the present array of people working in such projects if there is merely year-on-year funding.
It is now apparent that there is greater awareness of the administrative implications of grant aid. In work for the


disabled and other work which qualifies for grant aid, it is often assumed that grant is simply given for a project, without realising the administrative implications. Some voluntary bodies have come unstuck through under-funding, even though it is only by a small proportion. However, such a proportion is crucial for a project even though it may not be for a statutory body.
We must also look carefully at what is now happening to urban aid grants through the Department of the Environment. I understand that in the main there is a virtual bar on new revenue money for projects, and for urban authorities such as Leeds and others in west Yorkshire, it will be difficult to maintain projects even at their present levels unless there is a change of heart about the amount of revenue finance to be made available.
The hon. Member for mid-Kent referred to the National Association of Carers. It has been estimated that if only 1 per cent. of families which now care for disabled or elderly persons refused to carry that burden and asked that their dependants be placed in residential care, the cost to the state would increase overnight by 20 per cent. I suspect that in some cases carers are literally being exploited. We must look carefully at support for such carers, not just in financial terms but also in terms of respite. If we do not do so, we may find that there will be a decrease in the number of those who are prepared to be carers, simply because they are incapable of doing so for any length of time.
It is desperately important that institutional care and care in the community are interlinked. However, I do not wish to anticipate the debate that I hope we shall have on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. I notice that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) is present, and I am sure he would agree that the Minister should be given no excuse whatever to deny a debate on those matters. However, it is important to take on board many of the provisions contained in the recent report on care in the community. During our visits here and in the United States, we were impressed by the fact that when a local authority or voluntary project said that a certain number of disabled people would always remain in institutional care, we always discovered that in other areas such disabled people were being cared for in the community. Given the right support, I do not believe that it is impossible to care for any group of people in the community. We must therefore look at ways and means of drawing the funding together.
It is important that disabled and handicapped persons come out of institutions with a cheque which would go either to the voluntary body or the local authority. Even with joint finance or other tapered methods of finance, I do not believe that organisations are prepared to take on such responsibilities unless they have an assurance of continued financial support. It is important that such money be given for the place, not just the person, since otherwise voluntary bodies with no great capital resources on which to fall back might experience severe cash flow problems if the disabled person died, as a result of which that finance ceased. I understand that in the north-west that type of dowry money is being used effectively to enable people to come out of the institutions.
Given the different disabilities for which people are taken into care and for which they need special attention, it is interesting that quite a number of those disabilities are preventable. For example, the fourth largest group of people needing special care contains those suffering from

cardio-respiratory disorders. More than 10 per cent. of the total fall into that category. We must therefore look at preventive work such as that carried out on diet and nutritional food labelling rather than concentrating on treating people once they have become disabled.
Those of us who are fortunate to be able bodied must talk to our constituents whenever we can, even in the clubs and pubs, and should point out that people who are not as fortunate as ourselves must have the care to which they are entitled. One of the Minister's predecessors, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), told the Royal National Institute for the Blind in July 1979:
The disabled cannot expect to be exempted from the sacrifices necessary for economic recovery." 
I reject that. People with needs that are perhaps more serious than the problems we face economically are entitled to be protected from the cold winds that may blow. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that such services are provided and that those in need are properly cared for so that they can live as full a life as possible. That will be of benefit not just to the disabled, but to the rest of us when we see them take their full place in society.

Mr. Tim Yeo: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) made some of the points that I shall attempt to make, but perhaps I can approach them from another angle.
I begin by paying a tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I am sorry that he is not present, but he will do doubt read what I have said. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his original Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and also on initiating this debate on the 15th anniversary of that Act. It was on the right hon. Gentleman's first visit to India that he was informed that he had come first in the 1969 ballot for private Members' Bills.
At about that time the right hon. Gentleman and I were visiting the then Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Gandhi, as part of a group representing the Indian Spastics Society. We were lobbying the Indian Prime Minister to extend the special tax concessions available to voluntary organisations in India, which allow corporate donors to deduct more than 100 per cent, of the cost of a donation to certain research bodies in India. Tax concessions remain close to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman and myself in relation to what can be done for voluntary organisations in Britain. We are particularly worried about the problem of VAT and charities.
The Act has played a major role. Not only has it provided solid, practical help for thousands of disabled people and their families in the last 15 years, but it has significantly increased the public's awareness of disability. That is an important effect of the Act. It has been a beacon for many disabled people. As many hon. Members have said, it is regrettable that too many local authorities are still failing to carry out all their obligations under the Act.
All those right hon. and hon. Members to whom I wish to pay tribute seem to have left the Chamber. I was about to say something complimentary about my hon. Friend the Minister, but he too has left. His commitment is widely recognised. I have been aware of its since before I became a Member of the House.
I have had a long interest in the Act.I served on a group set up by the Royal Association for Disability and


Rehabilitation to examine the effects of the Act and to see whether it needed strengthening. We concluded that it needed strengthening three or four years ago. Voluntary organisations play an important role in monitoring the Act. They are useful watchdogs outside Parliament. They use their expertise to see whether it is effective in dealing with the problems in the way that was as originally intended.
The passing of the Act was not the end of the story. It was more of a foundation than a conclusion, and I should like to discuss the future. I do not want to discuss the social security Green Paper because we shall have ample opportunities to do that. I do not want to condemn that document before we have had a chance to examine it in detail.
There is much to be commended, particularly in relation to the principles, in the Green Paper. Everyone who has had to deal with the social security problems of the disabled and other claimants recognises the need to simplify the system. If we can direct a greater share of the social security budget to the most needy households, the Green Paper will serve a valuable purpose.
Hon. Members have accused local authorities of failing to carry out their obligations under the Act. Some local authorities claim that a lack of resources prevents them from carrying out their obligations. There can be no clearer reminder of the need to ensure that local authority money is spent wisely than the fact that it is not being spent on important services of the type required by this Act.
It is deplorable that ratepayers' money is being spent for political purposes such as publishing leaflets to promote anti-Government propaganda. Some local authorities refuse competitive tendering for their services at a cost to the ratepayers and to disabled people living in their areas.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The hon. Gentleman has been active among disabled people, and I am surprised that he should accuse local authorities in that way. He is talking about minute amounts of money being spent on political propaganda when millions of pounds are needed to satisfy the Act introduced so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Surely the hon. Gentleman concedes that each time the Government cut the grant-related expenditure allocation to local authorities they make it more and more difficult for authorities to carry out their obligations under the Act. Some local authorities can carry out their obligations only by breaking the law.

Mr. Yeo: I do not want to mar our constructive and mainly bi-partisan debate by having a detailed argument with the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). For whatever reason, local authorities have limited resources. That is inevitable. I want to ensure that those resources are used in the most effective way. Since one of the proper purposes for which those resources are needed is the relief of the problems of disability, it is a pity that some local authorities do not maximise their available resources.
The prevention of disability was referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. The problem of prevention illustrates the difficulty of persuading local authorities and health authorities to carry out the wishes of central

Government. Naturally, central Government are reluctant to dictate too minutely to local authorities about what they should do.
Before I worked for the Spastics Society, my predecessor Mr. James Loring launched the "save a baby" campaign, which was concerned with what the society described as the "priority of priorities"—the health of the future generation, and the need to ensure that as many babies as possible are born free of handicap and disability and are healthy.
Many aspects of prevention still merit attention. One aspect is the inadequacy of neonatal intensive care facilities. The provision of neonatal intensive care units remains below the level which even the DHSS acknowledges is required. That point was dealt with by the Social Services Select Committee in one of its early reports last year. It has been proven beyond doubt that the availability of neonatal intensive care facilities can save lives and enable healthy babies to be born, when the absence of such facilities would result in a handicapped baby being born. It is tragic that work by men such as Professor Osmond Reynolds cannot be duplicated throughout the country because of the absence of such facilities.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: As a member of the Social Security Select Committee, I confirm that what my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) says is true. However, does my hon. Friend recognise that under the guidance of our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench considerable progress has been made and that the perinatal mortality rate has dropped to 10.3 per thousand, which is close to the best rates in Europe, and is improving?

Mr. Yeo: I rejoice with my hon. Friend at the fall in the perinatal mortality rate, which is a mark of the considerable progress here over the last five or six years. It is the result not only of efforts by voluntary organisations and the professional skill of the medics, but of the fact that the Government have been willing to acknowledge the problem and allocate the resources to deal with it. The progress shows that it is worth doing even more, because there is still potential for further improvement.
Antenatal care is another important aspect of prevention. The Spastics Society produced a film three years ago entitled, "A Question of Confidence", which emphasised the tremendous variation in the quality of antenatal provision throughout the country. It is clear that some antenatal care clinics provide facilities for other children to be looked after while mothers attend the clinic. The environment, transport facilities and all other services connected with the good clinics are attractive and welcoming. In contrast with clinics which provide good facilities and are conveniently located, there are clinics in which appointments are not easy to make, where there are long waits and where no facilities exist for mothers to attend with other children.
Women are positively deterred from early attendance at poor antenatal clinics, although it is clear that clinics can be of vital importance. I hope that the Minister will draw the attention of his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security to those points, and I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary at that Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) in attendance.
I have been disappointed with the reports of the maternity services advisory committee. They can be described as weak, in that they have resulted in virtually no action being taken. We now find that the committee itself has quietly been wound up, although it was to have been one of the major responses of the Department to the 1980 report of the Social Services Select Committee on perinatal and neonatal mortality.
Another aspect that must be stressed in connection with prevention is health education, by which I do not mean just sex education, but the whole question of teaching youngsters the importance of such issues as pre-conceptual care, of diet before pregnancy and of not smoking for those who are planning to have children. Those are all aspects which deserve greater attention than they now receive, and the way in which health education is put across in schools — I accept that it has received considerable attention recently—must be monitored carefully.
The prevention of handicap is vital. However, another aspect is preventing the ill effects of handicap. The hon. Member for Leeds, West referred to this when dealing wih short-term respite care, which is a vital service, as I know from the work that is carried out at the Tadworth court children's hospital, where I have the privilege of being chairman of trustees,. The service which that hospital provides is of the greatest possible value to families who care for chronically sick and disabled children for most of the year.
The relief provided by having their children in Tadworth for a week or two takes off the pressure, which can be considerable indeed when caring for children in those circumstances. Unfortunately, there is no clear statutory obligation on authorities to pay for that short-term respite care, although they have a statutory obligation to provide even residential education, if necessary in special schools, for handicapped children.
There is an obligation to provide residential accommodation for any child or adult where families are unable to cope. However, where families are trying to cope — and, in so doing, are relieving the state of a considerable financial burden—there is no obligation on any authority to pay for the respite care that may make that process possible.
The ultimate consequence of not providing such care would be to throw a greater burden on health or local authorities, and there could be further costs in connection with families which might break up through the pressures of looking after such children. Local authorities are reluctant to sponsor children unless they are compelled to do so. Although I cannot offer an easy solution to the problem, we must accept that it exists.
About two years ago a private Member's Bill was introduced with the aim of amending the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It was designed to be an anti-discrimination measure. I regret that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is not present for this debate, although he introduced that amending measure. It is a pity that his interest in the subject appears to be so short lived—

Mr. Boyes: Cheap.

Mr. Yeo: —in that he has not managed to be here on what is, after all, an Opposition day.
The Act tackles a number of the consequences of disability and, in the way in which it raises the public's

consciousness of the subject, it has contributed to reducing the problem of discrimination against disabled people. Nevertheless, more needs to be done and it is worth recalling the detailed survey that was carried out by the Spastics Society in 1983, under the chairmanship of Mr. Ron Gerver, which came to the conclusion that discrimination against disabled people existed and that the one way to tackle it might be by legislation.
A great deal of discrimination results from ignorance or lack of thought on the part of people who have no first-hand experience of disability. However, there are more serious problems, particularly, for example, in employ-ment. Applicants for jobs who acknowledge: their disability at the time of applying find that their interview rate is substantially lower than those who make no reference to their disability. That is a sad but unfortunate truth.
On a less acute scale is the difficulty which, for example, spastic youngsters may encounter when getting served in pubs. Because of their physical disability, they are sometimes turned away because it is thought either that they will be unable to hold their drink in the way in which other youngsters can — a belief which is without foundation—or that the way in which they drink might deter other customers. I appreciate that discrimination of that sort is not easy to legislate on and that probably the educational process is the best way to put it right.
I welcome some of the imaginative educational advertising campaigns that have been launched, particularly the campaign which the Spastics Society has been running for some time, and I pay tribute to Mrs. Anita Monsell and Mr. Benjamin Bowles, who put together that campaign. There is, however, a role for legislation, too. A measure might be difficult to frame, and I accept that the amending Bill which was introduced in November 1983 was far from ideal. However, legislation could be part of the educational process, and the first step to putting matters right is to recognise the existence of discrimination.
I could not conclude my remarks without referring to the voluntary organisations. I pay tribute to the large number of outstanding voluntary bodies which are active in the field and I hope that their role can expand. Many of them contain a specialist expertise which can never be in the possession of statutory bodies. They are run by extremely committed people who offer outstanding value to the state in the work that they do, and I urge the Government to continue their programme, which is already encouraging, of exploring how voluntary organisations can be used to help implement policies such as care in the community.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West rightly referred to the funding problems of the various organisations. When the Government are assisting voluntary bodies with their funding, I hope that proper account will be taken of their administrative costs. Many schemes fall down because of lack of concentration on that aspect.
I welcome the debate and hope that the Minister will take careful note of the points that are being raised.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Hon. Members in all parts of the House know that I am disabled by deafness. I am grateful to your predecessor in the chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for assisting me. For about 20 minutes I was disabled by blindness, but your predecessor had the good


sense to have the blinds drawn. The sun was no longer in my eyes and I was able to see with clarity the handsome faces on the Conservative Benches.
I agree with the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) that this is, in the main, a consensus debate. However, I question his final remarks about voluntary bodies. In my constituency there are 44 marvellous organisations, including the Brent Association for the Disabled, which last year received £840,000 as a pump priming grant from the Greater London council. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the important role that voluntary bodies play, unless central Government replace the finance that such bodies have in the past received, I fear that their voluntary work will come to an end.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South in that while I, too, intended to speak about the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), the fact that they are both absent from the Chamber means that I must rely on the junior Minister and junior shadow Minister to convey to their superiors the essence of my remarks.
Today is a bit of a birthday for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. Those who piloted the Bill through in 1970 rejoiced that time had been found to pay tribute to his work. One of the key points of the Bill was that it co-ordinated the work of a number of different Departments under one Minister. Under the Labour Government, my right hon. Friend was the Minister with sole responsibility for disabled people.
I pay great tribute to the Minister for Social Security. He has the responsibility for disabled people as well as many other matters. The weakness in the present system is that there is still not only one Minister with responsibility for the disabled as provided for under the Act. Disablement is dealt with by many different Government Departments—Social Services, Transport, the Home Office and many others. All Departments have a responsibility towards the disabled and the chronically sick.
I have a profound regard for the Minister, but he has two responsibilities. I should be happy if the Minister were to be made Secretary of State or Minister for Health in the next Cabinet reshuffle. It would be a great improvement. Unfortunately, I am not at 10 Downing street to make that decision.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) commented on the Minister's speech. He said that he thought that it was a bad speech. I did not. The Minister made a good speech. He had the problem of having a dog's dinner wrapped up in green paper that he had to try to justify to the House. I thought that he made a good job of it.
The great thing about the Act was that it gave dignity and understanding to the disabled. It directed people's attention to them. On the last occasion upon which I had the privilege of speaking on health matters in the House, I referred to the National Health Service as being the jewel in the crown of the Labour party. It was, of course, associated with my right hon. Friend the late Nye Be van. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe added a further jewel to that crown 20 years later. The Act will

be his monument during his period in Parliament and for the rest of the century. The Act was, as a number of hon. Members have said, a landmark.
The chronically sick have not been mentioned much during the course of the debate. During the Bill's passage through the House the young chronically sick were of prime importance. Young people who were permanently disabled were in geriatric wards. They watched people in the surrounding beds dying. A geriatric ward for an active-minded, intelligent young person, merely because he or she was paraplegic, was a second disability that the House would not tolerate. It is one of the reasons why the House passed the Act.
That anxiety has not been followed up. It is the responsibility of district and regional health authorities to provide wards in which the young chronically sick can be separated from geriatrics. The Willesden general hospital has a young chronically sick ward. Even there, the original intention of separating the young chronically sick from the geriatrics has not worked, because Willesden general hospital is now a geriatric hospital. When I served on its committee, it was an acute hospital. It now has 16 beds for the young chronically sick, but its other 80 beds are occupied by the elderly. The whole purpose of that part of the Act was to put young people with other young people so that their youth did not stick out like a sore thumb among elderly people.
There are two pioneers in my area who are confined to wheelchairs. They are Nancy and Andrew Robertson, and they gave their name to the young people's ward at Willesden general hospital. It is called the Robertson ward. It was a tribute to the work that they had done with Disability Alliance and the many other organisations that helped to put the Act on the statute book.
Access has been mentioned by the Minister and other hon. Members. People like myself who are disabled by a hearing loss are entitled to access to the spoken word. The Act provides for that, but it does not happen everywhere. Access is provided in the Chamber. It has an electronic loop, which it took me eight years to persuade the authorities to install. Members who are hard of hearing need not listen acoustically; they can hear electronically, as I do. Unfortunately, one can only hear the main speaker and sometimes, especially at Question Time, interjections are far more interesting. The person listening electronic-ally does not hear them. I am pleased to say that the House of Lords has a loop system. Black Rod consulted me, and now their Lordships do not need to wear a type of glorified telephone; they can also hear electronically.
I had the privilege of inaugurating the loop system at Leeds castle, in conjunction with Lord Geoffrey-Lloyd. Marks and Spencer has done a marvellous job in providing facilities from its foundation fund for churches and other public buildings, including Leeds castle. There is no point in people having access to a church if they cannot hear what is being said. There is no point in going to a cinema if the sound does not exist. The National Film Theatre fortunately has a loop, but no other London cinemas have. Three theatres have the system. I was able to persuade the Barbican to have a loop installed in its theatres.
That aspect of access has been neglected. Although the Act provides for it, local authorities do not regard it as a priority. One of the reasons is that a hearing disability is invisible. Everyone notices the paraplegic and the blind man with his stick, but those of us who are deaf find that not many people understand the problems involved.
The cost of the loop is negligible, but it makes a great deal of difference. The hard of hearing lose consonants. For example, someone might say, "Let's take a look." If I lose the consonants and am not wearing my two hearing aids that could be, "Let's rape the cook." There is no difference in the sound to a person who is hard of hearing. We have to be able to increase the clarity, not necessarily the volume.
There have been some advances since the Act came into force. There is now a new system to help the hard of hearing. It uses the infra-red ray. The Royal Festival hall has instituted that system. It is the only hall in the country that has it. The cost of such facilities for the hard of hearing is much less than the cost of ramps and a number of other things that are needed for wheelchairs. The cost of installing the loop system in the Chamber could be less than £1,000. Even at a time when there is a cash shortage, access for people who are hard of hearing should be provided as a priority by local authorities.
If hon. Members want to understand deafness, they should, if they have the chance, see the play "Children of a Lesser God", which has returned to London. It is a magnificent piece of dramatic art. The original actress in it was completely deaf, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. I am fortunate to have a residue of hearing. I can hear with two hearing aids. My right hon. Friend, who was only half as deaf as I am when he was first elected, unfortunately has no hearing at all. He has to rely upon a number of other aids. No disabled person wants pity. A number of hon. Members have said that we want equality. We do not want things done for us out of charity. We want them done as a result of decisions taken in the House and elsewhere, through participation. We do not want pity; we do not even want sympathy. We want understanding.
The best hearing aid ever walks on two legs—any member of the family or a friend of a deaf person. Pauline, the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, is a fantastic person. She has done outstanding work for the deaf as the chairman of the Royal National ear, nose and throat hospital. Her work surpasses all understanding of what can be done by a person who is fully involved. The family and friends of a deaf person must understand how important it is for them to talk clearly and distinctly and to make sure that they have communicated. That is the best hearing aid that a deaf person can have.
As I said earlier, the debate has been about the second jewel in Labour's crown, provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. We still have a long way to go. I do not agree with the Minister that he cannot monitor the huge discrepancies in spending allocations by local authorities. My right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for Wythenshawe gave figures showing that many local authorities are failing to meet their legal requirement under this Act to service the disabled.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, in his opening speech, mentioned several helpful books, but he did not mention his own book, "No Feet to Drag". The House gives my right hon. Friend credit for putting pressure on his own Government on these matters, just as much as he has with Conservative Governments. My right hon. Friend's book shows that those responsible for providing services for the disabled have failed in their

duty, dragged their feet, and did not have sufficient understanding of the problems of those who are unable to do their own thing in their own time.
In 15 years' time, in the next century, when my right hon. Friend—like a Manny Shinwell—is sitting on the Front Bench of a Labour Government, I hope that the House will then have the sense to have another debate to mark the passing of 30 years since the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act received Royal Assent. It will be a permanent monument to him and to the Labour party.

Mr. Roger Sims: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), who has done so much on behalf of the chronic sick and disabled and has a long record in that respect which I could not hope to match.
The hon. Member and other hon. Members have referred to public attitudes. Whatever reservations the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) may have as to the extent to which his Act has been legally enforced, he can take a good deal of credit for the considerable change in public attitudes towards the disabled over the past 15 years. Not only is more provision now made for the disabled, but there is far greater understanding of and consideration for the disabled in many ways.
People now take it for granted that there may be a wheelchair going up and down the high street or moving in and out of the shops, and they make allowances for it. People understand the problems of the blind, whether or not they are accompanied by a guide dog. People realise how they can be helped.
The hon. Member for Brent, South was right to call attention to a group of the disabled whose problems axe still not fully understood in the community, despite his work and that of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) over so many years. Both of them have set a splendid example in showing how the profoundly deaf and the hard of hearing can play a full and active part in public life and in this House. As the hon. Gentleman said, part of the problem is that deafness is, as it were, an invisible disablement.
There have been some impressive technical develop-ments which have done much for the deaf. There are far better and far more effective hearing aids available today than there were a few years ago. The introduction of Teletext on television has been an enormous boon for the hard of hearing and the deaf, who are now able to enjoy television to an extent that was never possible before.
The equipment used by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South to enable him to take part in our debates has been a great step forward and has enormous potential, but, as the hon. Member for Brent, South said, in the community generally it is still difficult for people to understand and appreciate properly the problems of the deaf. They have not yet the equivalent of the white stick by which the blind can make their disablement evident to those around them, although the introduction and spreading of the sympathetic hearing scheme is a step in the right direction.
People generally do not always know how to react to the deaf. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important to understand their problem and to speak clearly to them. To use the title of the BBC's Ceefax magazine, when speaking to deaf people there is "no need to shout". The


important thing is to speak clearly and slowly. From time to time I enjoy the intriguing experience of an animated conversation with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South in the "silence room" of the Library of the House of Commons.
Deafness is a far more widespread disability than is generally appreciated. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for Brent, South are quite open about their disability and show how they can live with it. It is surprising that a number of hon. Members on each side of the House who suffer from a degree of deafness seem reluctant to make it evident and thereby enable others to help them.
One of the problems for those who suffer from some sort of physical disablement arises from ordinary everyday living conditions. They need housing accommodation that is suitable for their particular needs. They need accommodation that has been constructed or adapted to cope with their requirements. Local authorities and housing associations are active in building or adapting accommodation to suit the disabled. Wonderful work has been done in that respect by the Cheshire homes. There is a first-class scheme running in my own constituency at Wood Lodge, where a mini-village has been constructed, with conventional types of accommodation as well as houses and flats specially built for the disabled, so that they can feel very much a part of the community.
My Government's policy of restrictions on the extent to which local authorities could spend their capital receipts inevitably affected housing associations, and therefore restricted the amount of work that could be done for the disabled, but help to the disabled in their own homes may well be even better than moving them into special accommodation. Often the provision of relatively small items or adaptations can make a great deal of difference to their lives. Some criticism has been made of the extent to which local authorities help the disabled in that way, but my own local authority social service department has done much to provide small and relatively inexpensive aids to the disabled, such as an extra stair rail, special seating and frames in the lavatory, walking frames, zimmers and so on, all of which make life so much easier for the disabled. The voluntary organisations also do very good work in that area. The Red Cross organisation is always ready to help with equipment in an emergency. Voluntary organisations often have a specialist knowledge and expertise in their particular field which exceeds that of the local authority.
Recently I had the privilege of attending the annual general meeting of my local association for the care of those with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. One realises the particular difficulties with which the parents of children who suffer from these complaints must cope. Sometimes bureaucracy is unnecessarily harsh in allocating assistance for adaptations. Often a grant will be available, and, where that is not the case, some adaptations qualify for relief from VAT. That is right and desirable, but it is extraordinary that VAT relief is available for work done to help access to a property and for the provision or alteration of a bathroom, washroom or lavatory, but not if one wishes to build or adapt a bedroom for a disabled person.
The wife of one of my constituents is wholly incapable of walking, is confined to a wheelchair and cannot climb stairs. He is out at work during the day and, in any case,

could not carry her up and down stairs night and day. For many years she has been living in a small dining room on the ground floor. To improve the quality of her life my constituent is having a purpose-built bedroom constructed as an extension to the ground floor. It will be a room with a wide entrance, a large window, a ramp and various fitments which a disabled person requires. According to the VAT regulations the only part of that work which is exempt from VAT is the ramp. If he was adapting a bathroom, washroom or lavatory, the entire work would be free of VAT, but because he is building a bedroom, he must pay VAT on virtually everything.
When I took the matter up with the Treasury, I was told that a line must be drawn somewhere, but it seems rather a harsh line, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minster, who has a particular interest in this area, will have a word with the Treasury to see whether we can get a more reasonable approach to the problem.
We have gone a long way in 15 years, although not as far as many people would like to go in terms of the application of the law and the public attitude. There is still plenty of scope for Government action, and the Minister has not been short of advice today. There is also scope for greater public understanding of the particular problems of the disabled. If today's debate has done something to increase public understanding, our time has been well spent.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am glad to be called to speak in this debate. I should like to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his efforts over the years in this area and for initiating the debate this afternoon. Although some of us are comparatively new Members of Parliament, having come to the House in 1979, we have known, studied and followed his work and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr: Ashley).
I am the president of the disabled group in Ogmore, which has a comprehensive number of disabled people. Some of them suffer because they are legless, armless, or hard of hearing, but the majority suffer from pneumoconiosis, silicosis and other mining-related diseases. We respect them for the work that they and others have done over the years in Wales and other parts of the country, and we appreciate their problems and difficulties. My father was a miner in the Rhondda, and he worked for 35 years in Fernhill colliery. He was discharged with pneumoconiosis — 75 per cent.—but received little benefit from the coal owners at the time and the National Coal Board when it was formed.
I remember Friday 18 November 1983 when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) introduced a private Member's Bill in the hope that Conservative Members would show compassion. A considerable number of hon. Members turned up, primarily to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Government promised to look seriously at the problem and hoped to be able to do something for us.
I wish to raise many matters on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and I appreciate that many hon. Members are aware of the time factor. I stress the importance of hospitalisation for people, especially as in Wales the vital care and nursing survices for chronically


sick, disabled and elderly patients is at stake. Decisions are being taken by the so-called managers of the Mid-Glamorgan health authority to close a hospital in the Blackmill area of Ogmore. For years the hospital has looked after the sick, the elderly and the disabled for short-stay periods, so that the children and, in some cases, the grandchildren can have a break from nursing them. Now that the hospital is to be closed, most of those elderly patients will have to find alternative nursing accommoda-tion. That is precisely what the Government are doing in my constituency, in Wales, and, indeed, throughout the country. It is high time that there was either a change of attitude or of Government so that we can stop officials from reducing our health care facilities. The closure of the hospital is vigorously opposed by the people of Ogmore. Ten thousand names have been collected against the proposed closure. I am sure that with some persuasion the Secretary of State for Wales may agree to alter the decision.
When I meet the disabled in my group, they tell me of the personal and particular disadvantages to which they have been subjected since the Government came to office. Hon. Members do not need to go far to find how the disabled are suffering under the Government's policies. They need only go as far as the disabled in their constituencies. The Minister talked about the Green Paper, but the disabled people in my constituency cannot know about it because they cannot afford to buy the documents. Volume I costs £3, volume II cost £6·60, volume III costs £10·50, and the housing benefit review costs £6·10. That makes a total of £26, which is equal to the benefit on which some of them must live for a week. Therefore, when the Minister wonders why he has had no response from disabled and disadvantaged people about his proposals, I can tell him that it is because they cannot afford to buy the documents.

Mr. Alec Woodall: Does my hon. Friend accept that every time the Government review allowances, whether for the disabled, the chronically sick or anyone else, the disabled are always the losers, as they will be under the new proposals? That was pointed out by Peter Large, vice-chairman of the Disablement Income Group, in a letter to The Times last Friday. They were the losers when the supplementary benefit scheme was supposed to be simplified in 1980, and again in 1984, when the available scale margin was increased from 50p to £1. The disabled were also disadvantaged when the heating allowances were extended.

Mr. Powell: I accept what my hon. Friend says. The Green Paper is a Government con trick. They justify their proposals on the basis of a con by the Minister who said that the proposals will mean a partnership between the individual and the state—a system built on twin pillars, as he calls it—better targeting, simplification and an improvement of the work incentive. In reality, the proposals mean a vastly reduced state provision, wholesale privatisation, more means testing, cuts, no flexibility, more cuts, stigmatisation for the unemployed, the active encouragement of low pay and yet more cuts. As my hon. Friend says, disabled people will be more disadvantaged than all the others.
I could have said much more, but I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate. The proposals in the Green Paper relating to the disabled and

to the disadvantaged in society who receive social security benefits will undoubtedly be a complete failure — [Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would stop talking and listen for two minutes. It appears that he is not listening to the views of the Opposition.
As I said, many of those who would have wished to contribute to the debate on the Green Paper and other documents will be unable to do so because they cannot afford them, but those of us who have seen the documents wish to tell the Minister a few things. The Green Paper fails completely to address itself to the problems of the present social security system. Its proposals will further erode the principle of social insurance, extend the stigma of the means tests, and remove the security of protection against poverty for millions of our people.
The Government should review the system so that disabled groups can be provided with a breakdown of the proposals. One cannot expect disabled people to digest all the information, let alone to pay for it. Indeed, even if they could afford it, it would cause them indigestion. We want something different. We want the Minister to listen to disabled people and to propose something entirely different from the Green Paper.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall not mention the new social security review because enough has been said about it today. I have not been convinced by the Government's explanation of the proposals. The Minister and other Conservative Members have talked about fairer distribution, but I am dying to know what amount of money the Government hope to save by the review. However, I shall have to wait to see what happens.
We are talking about the 15th anniversary of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the way in which he worked all those years ago to put this measure on the statute book. There is no doubt that it was a step in the right direction.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), I had many years' experience of the mining industry and I realise the disablement that can result from such employment. I was one of the lucky ones, because I spent 40 years in the industry and was unaffected. I feel extremely sorry for those who have been affected and whom we try to help as much as we can. The nearest that I have been to their experience was spending a day in a wheelchair to find out how the disabled cope with their problems. I discovered some amazing problems. I tried to enter the public library, but discovered that the door was not wide enough for the wheelchair. I had great difficulty in squeezing into a lift so that I could get upstairs to where the books were. I could not reach the top two shelves. It showed me that we are falling down on the job of providing facilities for disabled people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned pneumoconiosis, which is an extremely serious problem. I have seen people fighting for breath as a result of contracting the disease from working in the pits. They are sent by their general practitioners to see the local consultant, who does a series of tests. The results of those tests are then sent to the regional health authority, where the decision about the percentage of coal dust in the lungs is made. Many of those people are told that their disablement is not severe enough to warrant the payment


of benefit. However, it grieves and sickens me that, when many of them have died and post-mortems are carried out, more often than not it is discovered that they were 45, 50 or 60 per cent. pneumoconiotic. Yet they were turned down by those whizz kids in the regional health authority. The Government must examine the matter, because such people should receive the benefits to which they are entitled but which they are being denied. That is one matter that worries me when I consider the new review. How many more people will be affected in the way that I have suggested?
There are many accidents in the mining industry. We have a system of rehabilitation, but what happens? The Government put on the clamps and tell the regional health authorities that less money will be allocated next year. That has happened in the Trent region, with the result that it wishes to close a rehabilitation centre that is doing a marvellous job. The fabulous service that it can provide helps to get men back to work more quickly.
The Minister talked about local authority overspending. Ashfield district council has been fair, and has tried to provide for the disabled as much accommodation as it can afford. However, because of Government cuts, it cannot provide enough suitable accommodation, which means that many disabled people must continue to struggle up and down stairs in their old homes.
There are terrible problems, which I hope the Minister appreciates. However, I doubt whether there will be action. There will be no action until we get rid of the Government. We should spend more money on the disabled. For two years, I have been asking the Government to do something about the provision of hearing aids. The previous Minister for Social Security took no action, but I hope that this Minister will do something. In my area, people must wait 18 months for hearing aids. However, 14 ½ miles away in Nottingham, the wait is between four and six months. That is unclear. Let us have a balancing up and some money put into ensuring the proper provision of hearing aids. After all, deaf people are disabled and should be looked after properly. They have made their contributions, as many are elderly people, and they need such aids to be able to hear what is going on. Travelling expenses should also be given to those who have to travel to Nottingham.
While I was in that wheelchair, I found kerbs too high and doors that I could not get through. I could not get upstairs. We have to examine the problem properly. We have skated over it far too often and for far too long, but the Act is on the statute book. We have to make it work in the interests of disabled people so that they may enjoy a better life.

Mr. Roland Boyes: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said that disabled people wanted neither pity nor sympathy, but opportunity and equality, and one opportunity that they want is the right to work. The Tomlinson report, as long ago as 1943, said that the aim should be to secure for the disabled people their full share within their capacity of such employment as was ordinarily available. It asked for the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act and suggested that employers with 20 or more employees should have at least 3 per cent. of their work force as disabled people.
Despite that report, only 30 per cent. of companies, according to the latest figures, meet the 3 per cent. quota. That figure was given in Hansard on 21 November 1984. On the other hand, there is strong all-party support for a quota system, shown in a report in New Society on 1 January 1981. Conservatives voted 66 per cent., Labour Members 72 per cent., Liberals 74 per cent. and others 61 per cent.—69 per cent. overall—in favour of the quota system being strengthened.
I hope that the Minister will say something about incentives to register. It is interesting to note that local authorities had an increase in the number of people registered because they get a benefit from so doing. I accept that the number of people wanting to work appears to be reducing dramatically, because there is no incentive to register as such people cannot get a job. I suggest that the Minister looks at his own house. The latest figures for Departments show that only five of the 44 fulfil the quota. In the Department of Health and Social Security, which should be particularly aware of this problem, only 1.5 per cent. of the staff are disabled. We should be asking companies, both private and public sector, to take their quota, and the Government should be setting an example.

Mr. Alfred Morris: There is no time for me to reply to the debate from this Dispatch Box. I count it more important that the Minister should have some time to reply, and I have been concerned to assist as many other hon. Members as possible to take part in the debate. I have three very brief points to make.
First, as the Minister will know, the Royal National Institute for the Blind published on 3 June an important report on "Local Authority Social Rehabilitation Services to Visually Handicapped People". It is a disturbing document, which says;
Local Authority Social Services departments' provisions for newly-blind people are inadequate, widely variable and likely to deteriorate further.
I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that statement in the short time available to him.
Secondly, the timing of the debate made it impossible for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to be with us today. I am sure that the House will understand their problem and will very much have missed the contributions they would have made to the debate. Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will deal with more of the questions raised with him in the debate than he has so far been able to do.
I am grateful for the kindness shown to me by so many of my colleagues — indeed by right hon. nd hon. Members on both sides of the House—who have spoken in the debate.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will realise that I am also under some pressure about the number of points that I can make. Not quite so many kind words have been said about me as about the right hon. Gentleman, but I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) was quite nice about me, as was the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). I am only sorry to have missed the rare privilege of compliments to a Minister.
I acknowledge the strictures on the social security review made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr.


Powell). However, I cannot immediately think of any significant way in which the social insurance principle is altered by the way that the provisions of the review affect disabled people. What has been the subject of debate today has nothing to do with social insurance benefits. We are concerned with the income-related or means-tested benefit, which is undoubtedly of great significance to disabled people, as has been acknowledged.
A number of organisations gave oral and written evidence to the review. In view of the strength with which the hon. Member for Ogmore put his remarks, I point out that I went out of my way to arrange for the Wales Council for the Disabled, which was not able to come to a public hearing, to come to see me personally at Alexander Fleming house to put its views. I was glad to be able to do that.
I remain convinced that our proposals, which I described at some length earlier, provide a clearer, more comprehensible system of assistance to disabled people in the income-related sector. It will be fairer across the range of disabled people who depend upon income support. To pick up what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, for those two reasons and especially because of the former, benefits are likely to be much more effectively taken up by those at whom they are directed, than with the present confusing and complicated system.
Earlier, when I spoke of the advantages of the proposed new structure, I said that our intention was for the disablement premium to be paid where the claimant's partner, as distinct from the claimant, was either in receipt of certain benefits or simply certified as having been incapable of work for 28 weeks or more. I said that we would wish this last qualification — simply being incapable of work for 28 weeks even if no incapacity benefit was payable to form a passport—would also apply to the partners of claimants.
So as to avoid misleading anyone, I should acknowledge that this intention presents some practical problems, as in many cases the partner will not normally be in the employment sector. I cannot be absolutely sure that we shall be able to overcome this problem, but we shall certainly seek to do so, and in many cases the equal treatment rules that allow partners to decide which of them

will be the claimant will probably provide an appropriate answer. I wish to show knowledgeable people outside that there is a practical problem.
I attach importance to the problems of deaf people, a point raised both by the hon. Member or Brent South, with his well-known knowledge of, and interest in, this sector, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims). The problems of deaf people demand more of our attention. I have formed that impression in the period over which I have been Minister with responsibility for the disabled, and we shall seek to reflect that in developing our policies.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe spoke about the RNIB and its survey. It will be within his knowledge that the Department has been carrying out work to discover more up-to-date information about the services provided by local authority social services departments to the blind. We have not yet managed to complete collating all that information, but it will be used as a basis for discussion with bodies outside, including the RNIB, to see what action might be appropiate to bring about any improvements that are shown to be needed.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South about the need for prevention. He will be aware both of the present rubella campaign and of the Asian mother and baby campaign. These are two significant initiatives directed at prevention with which my hon. Friend is associated. I thought that he was a little hard in his words about the maternity services advisory committee. In general, its reports are felt to have been very useful exercises. They have been sent to all health authorities, with the committee's own check list of action, and the Government have made it clear that they hope that health authorities will pick up the suggestions made by the committee.
Finally, in this brief canter round the field, I must pay tribute to the work of the voluntary organisations. This matter was touched upon by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and a number of others—

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6(2)(c).

Orders of the Day — Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ENFORCEMENT OF CONVENTIONS

'(1) The Ministers may jointly by order made by statutory instrument—
(a) declare that any procedure which has been developed for the effective application of the London Conventionm or the Oslo Convention and is specified in the order is an agreed procedure as between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of any Convention State so specified; and
 (b)specify any of the powers conferred by this Act for the purpose of enforcing this Part of this Act as a power that may be exercised, by such persons in such circumstances and subject to such conditions or modifications as may be specified, for the purpose of enforcing that procedure.
(2) A person who exercises any powers by virtue of an order under this section shall have the same rights and liabilities in relation to their exercise that a person authorised under section 11 above would have in relation to the exercise of any powers for the purpose of enforcing this Part of this Act.
 (3)A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this motion, we may discuss Government amendment No. 50.

Mr. MacGregor: In Committee, amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) which would have re-enacted section 6 of the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. That section enables Ministers to make orders putting into effect any co-operative procedures between contracting parties to the London and Oslo conventions for enforcement of those conventions on the high seas. Since no such arrangements had been made since 1974, or seemed likely to be made, the provision was not included in the Bill because it seemed to be unnecessary. However, the hon. Member for Pontypridd argued in Committee — really in response to an invitation from me—that if the situation ever arose, he would prefer to see statutory provision that anticipated the likelihood of any arrangements of this kind so that it would not be necessary to have emergency or primary legislative provisions. I said that I had no strong feelings either way, but that, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, I was happy to concur.
The new clause meets that commitment, although the drafting is considerably changed from the 1974 Act both to fit in with the other provisions of the Bill and to make a number of technical changes and improvements. It gives us all the powers that we think might be needed in the event of enforcement procedures being agreed.
Government amendment No. 50 is consequential on the new clause on enforcement of the conventions. It excludes the Northern Ireland Office from making an order under the new clause. The clause concerns enforcement of the conventions outside United Kingdom territorial waters, and such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Office. Any orders made under the new clause would be made by the Minister and the Secretary of State.
It might be helpful if I added some further explanation. Both the conventions contain an agreement to co-operate in developing enforcement procedures, in particular on the high seas. Any orders made under this clause would specify the convention state or states with which we had agreed such procedures, and may confer on officers of such states any of the powers which British officers have for the purposes of enforcing part II of the Bill, with or without any modifications. Officers of the specified convention states could be empowered to enter British vessels on the high seas if they suspected there were substances or articles to be deposited on board. British officers' powers may be extended so that they could enter vessels of specified convention states on the high seas. British officers may enter any vessel inside United Kingdom waters under powers conferred in the Bill. It is not intended that any officers would be given powers of entry within another country's territorial waters. This will be made clear in the order.
All officers acting under the order would have the same rights and liabilities as British officers enforcing part II of the Bill—for example, they must be issued with, and must produce, evidence of their authority; they must carry out their functions at a reasonable hour; and they have the same protection from prosecution.
I spell this out only for the convenience of the House, because the issue may be academic. However, it is useful to add this provision to the Bill and to have powers to act for any such eventuality.

Dr. David Clark: The Opposition welcome the new clause and the subsequent consequential amendment. We are grateful for the way in which the Minister has taken on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said so eloquently both on Second Reading and in detail in Committee. It has allowed us to adopt a bi-partisan approach to this aspect of the Bill.
The clause replaces in statute form section 6(1) of the Dumping at Sea Act. It appeared that the Bill repealed completely the Dumping at Sea Act, and the Opposition felt that by including a provision along the lines of the new clause people would be reassured that, although the Act was being repealed, we were in no way weakening it.
The whole House believes that we should not weaken our commitment to the principles of the Dumping at Sea Act, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that we should look closer at ways of developing the provisions of the Act to try to ensure that the seas that surround us, especially the North sea, are protected from the cumulative effects of pollution.
The Opposition regard section 6 of the Dumping at Sea Act as important. As the Minister explained, it was essentially an enabling provision. It permitted Her Majesty's Government to introduce agreements made under the conventions and to carry them forward into legislation by means of a statutory instrument. We have


felt that that was very much preferable to emergency or primary legislation. We have seen again and again how Governments have difficulties in providing time for the consideration of primary legislation, as the Minister knows from his experience of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and primary legislation enacting the Government's environmental policies as they affect agriculture.
As I understand it, the Government originally omitted the clause on the logic that, because it had not been used for the past 11 years or so, it would perhaps never be used. History may be used to judge what is likely to happen in the future, but on this occasion, I think that that was a false judgment. It may be that events are taking place which will result in agreements under the conventions, and we may wish to incorporate those into British law. I say that because the House knows of the growing unrest about the amount of pollution being unloaded into our seas, the North sea especially.
Our concern is justified because much pollution is cumulative. With modern science and technology, it means not only that the type of pollution is more complicated, but that our methods of testing are more complicated and sophisticated. Therefore, we are able to judge the effect of increasing dumping in the sea and, from that effect, we can make a judgement about the damage that it will cause to the marine environment or to the human environment which may depend on the seas. That was outlined clearly in the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. It drew attention to this problem, especially in the North sea.
The Government take a rather relaxed attitude—I do not say a non-vigilant attitude — about the North sea. With our fast rivers running into the sea and because of our topography, we tend to see the seas differently from our neighbours. Although Her Majesty's Government's attitude may be relaxed, that is not the view of many of our neighbours. Recently, the Dutch Minister of Transport described the North sea as
the dustbin of the coastal straits.
There is no doubt that Britain is probably the worst polluter of the North sea.
The clause would allow the encouragement of a convention agreement. As the Minister knows, there was a very important conference in Bremen in November 1984 when these problems of pollution and related aspects were discussed. Britain was somewhat isolated at the conference. One result is that, at the Government's invitation, a second conference is to be held in London towards the end of 1986. I hope that the Government will push for a joint agreement under the convention, which may call for legislation under this clause. Between now and 1986 the Council of Europe municipalities working group on marine pollution is to hold a major international conference under the auspices of the Tyne and Wear county council in the north-east of England. Some of the ground work to be carried out at that conference will be useful to the conference to be held in London in 1986.
We have argued all along for the inclusion of this clause, for two reasons. First, it would reassure people that, although we were repealing the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, we were not throwing away any of its principles. Secondly, we welcome it because we believe that there are great advantages in having enabling legislation of this kind, especially when we are dealing with an area where there is movement and a great deal of discussion and where

I hope that before too long there will be international agreement. We very much welcome the Government's flexibility on this point and the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

CODES OF PRACTICE

'(1) The Ministers may from time to time after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of the interests concerned—
 (a).prepare and issue codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance in respect of any provision of this Part of this Act or of regulations; and
(b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.
(2) A code prepared in pursuance of this section and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the Ministers shall not issue the code or revised code, as the case may be, until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the code or the proposed alterations were so laid.
(3) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the code be not issued, or the proposed alterations be not made, as the case may be, the Ministers shall not issue the code or revised code (without prejudice to their powers under that subsection to lay further codes or proposed alterations before Parliament).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—
(a) where a code or proposed alterations are laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the later day shall be taken to be the day on which the code or the proposed alterations, as the case may be, were laid before both Houses; and
(b) in reckoning any period of 40 days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The Ministers shall cause any code issued or revised under this section to be printed and distributed, and may make such arrangements as they think fit for its distribution, including causing copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such reasonable price as the Ministers may determine.
(6) A failure on the part of any person to follow any guidance contained in a code issued under this section shall not of itself render that person liable to proceedings of any kind.
(7) In all criminal proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.'.—[Mr. John.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 51.

Mr. John: Normally it is with tongue in cheek that we speak about improving a Bill in Committee because we do our damnedest either to get our point of view accepted or to wreck the principle. The new clause is an example of the way in which we have succeeded in clarifying our minds about the contents of the Bill. The addition of the clause will improve the Bill.
The clause provides the codes of practice with a statutory base. The Government's proposal was that the codes of conduct should not necessarily be given statutory force, but in Committee and again tonight our view is that the codes of practice should be given statutory force. I hope that this proposal will be supported by the


Government. Having got the principle right, I messed up the consequentials and the Government have kindly tabled a number of consequential amendments which put the matter right.
The Bill provides a statutory basis and allows the House to pray against codes of practice which may be deemed to be harmful. There is procedure for dealing with such a prayer. Subsection (5) deals with the distribution of the codes of practice to those who use or who are likely to use them. I shall deal with that point later.
It is important that these codes of practice should be made known to those branches of industry which are likely to use them. I hope that the Government will announce the steps that they will take to ensure that the codes of practice are widely disseminated. They ought to be made available either free or at a nominal cost to farmers and to others who may be expected to use them in order that they may be widely known and observed. That is the object of providing codes of conduct of this kind.
Nobody disputes that pesticides are highly toxic chemicals. They have to be used, but they must be used properly because of their toxicity. We must weigh both the benefits to be derived from them and the risks involved in using them. The benefits are obvious. They have led to increased food production and to a reasonably uninfected environment. Nevertheless, we must weigh up the risks both to the users of the pesticides and also to those who live in the vicinity — the people who may be either directly or indirectly affected by the vaporisation of the pesticides.
Pesticide residues can affect the consumer if harvest intervals are not observed or if the pesticide residues that are to be found in the food chain are too high and therefore dangerous to the consumer. We must also consider the effect upon wildlife and the environment of the use of pesticides and their allied products because of the damage which in the past has unwittingly and innocently been caused by all of us. We do not wish to inflict further damage in the future.
On the effect of organochlorines, I read in the newspapers last week that some people allege that certain of the DDT derivatives are still being used in this country. One wonders how the people who use them can be so heedless of their health and about the damage that they are causing to the environment. Wildlife has been endangered by the use of pesticides. We have to guard against a number of dangers in the codes of practice.
We pride ourselves upon the fact that we are now fairly conversant with the dangers of pesticides but we are not yet aware of all the dangers, certainly not of the long-term dangers. Some of the risks are not yet known and will probably not be known for decades to come. Therefore we should always err on the side of safety and consider not how narrow but how wide is the use of pesticides or pesticide-like substances. They are used not only for the production of food but for the storage of food.
Pesticides will probably be used for the storage of food for a very long time. I understand that last week a committee dealt with irradiation and expressed fears about it. Pesticides and herbicides are used in ever-increasing quantities in our houses and gardens. In percentage terms, this is probably a major growth industry. Pesticides and herbicides are excellent when they are used according to

the regulations. It is vital that they should be stored and used properly because they can be lethal to pets and children.
Most members of the public do not appreciate that pesticides and herbicides are used by local authorities in public parks and on roadside verges. It is important for those who use herbicides in parks, and for those who use those recreational areas, that such substances should be used properly and that there should be a code of practice, which is observed, thus ensuring some safety.
Domestic pests and timber control is one of the most neglected aspects. Indeed, it was neglected during the debate in the other place, and the situation was remedied only in Committee, when there was a thorough discussion of the issue. Given the confined spaces involved and the highly toxic substances used in pest control and timber treatment in the home, it is highly desirable that there should be a code of practice. Furthermore, I believe that codes of practice should be sent to those involved. However, to ensure proper observation we need a fairly stable timber treatment industry so that the means of control and treatment do not vary dramatically from year to year.
In Committee, I produced statistics showing that, according to the Yellow Pages, firms were going in and out of existence with alarming frequency. Such short-lived organisations must involve a cowboy element, and thus are not the experts that they hold themselves out to be. Consequently, it is important that some safeguards should be provided through a code of practice. The registration of such organisations should also be considered where they contract out and hold themselves out as being experts.
Industrial pest control in factories, hospitals, res-taurants and so on is a highly sensitive matter for the many people who work in them. In Committee we had a long discussion—it seemed long, but perhaps it was just a short interchange — about whether compulsion and persuasion were mutually exclusive. As hon. Members will see from the new clause, failure to follow any guidance is not made a criminal offence. However, any such code of practice will be admissible in evidence during any future prosecution. That strikes a balance. We all hope that the codes of practice will persuade people to pursue decent practices both indoors and outdoors for their safety and that of others. However, if they do not do so, there should be some sanction to prevent them from carrying on.
The problems are different in the various areas that I have already outlined. For example, different problems arise in respect of parks, the treatment of timber in domestic houses and industrial pest control. Consequently, there should be a separate code of practice dealing with each major sector so that, to quote the Secretary of State for Social Services, we can have codes of practice that are targeted on the particular evil that we want to avoid and on the areas that we want to govern. In particular, I hope that aerial spraying will be dealt with in that way. Despite all the debates and assurances, I am still unhappy about the interest of the Civil Aviation Authority in the aerial spraying debate. I should be ruled out of order if I dwelt on that now, but I should like to record my general unhappiness, and my belief that a code of practice on aerial spraying would have a definite effect.
But the main code of practice should deal with the training of those using pesticides. The 1976 ADAS report has been quoted, and it showed that 40 per cent. of those using pesticides on farms had received some training. The


conclusion was that 60 per cent. had received none. The British Agrochemicals Association talked about the mismatch of a high technology means of application and the largely unskilled operators of such highly technical, increasingly complex machinery. We know that the agricultural training board has the means and courses to offer to such people, but they are very much under-subscribed. The reason may be a matter for debate, but the fact that they are under-subscribed is undeniable and is a cause for concern to us all.
As agriculture is an industry whose machinery is becoming ever more complex, people should be trained in its use and application both for their protection and to ensure the proper application of pesticides. Therefore, some form of certification might be considered. The training of employees in wood preservation is also essential, because some of the substances used are particularly toxic. However, that is only likely to happen in a stable industry and that, in turn, depends on registration.
Enforcement is perhaps the one matter that is not dealt with in the new clause and that may be the subject of criticism. I deliberately did not include it because it is a matter of fact rather than of legislative provision. But in the past three years the farm inspectorate's establishment is reported to have fallen from 179 to 151. Even with the 12 people allocated to the inspectorate for the purposes of the Bill, there will still be fewer inspectors dealing with agriculture than three years ago. Moreover, they will be dealing with a far wider range of issues because of the legislative burden that the Bill imposes on them.
There was a difference of opinion as to whether the farm inspector would interrupt someone's breakfast every fortnight or every five or six years. It was rare for us to disagree in Committee, but when we did so, we did not do so by halves. There was a considerable difference in the estimates as to how often the inspector would make a routine visit. However, I stick by my estimate that the visit is likely to be every five or six years. If that is so, the enforcement that is necessary as a backup to persuasion is not likely to be very effective. Perhaps I am ending on a rather negative note —

Mr. John Carlisle: If inspections took place more regularly, perhaps every two to three years, how many people would have to be employed?

Mr. John: More. Obviously, I cannot give a precise answer, but we are placing more duties on fewer people and, therefore, we must be over-stretching them. I hope that hon. Members will be conscious of that fact. Indeed, that is why the codes of practice are important and should be statutory. Much enforcement could be avoided if we could get an acceptance within all branches of the industry that codes of practice should be followed in their own interests, and those of others.
We would then not need to be so worried about enforcement, but that will depend on what the Government do to disseminate the information and to make it relatively cheap. Expensive booklets tend to be remaindered and I do not know of a remainder bookstore run by ADAS.
To avoid ending on a negative note, I should say that a statutory system, with properly enforced and regulated codes of practice, could be of immense benefit in dealing with highly toxic substances. I believe that the new clause will bring great benefits and I thank the Government for

their assistance in the matter. We have been at one on the principle and I hope that the House will ensure that we are also at one in practice.

Miss Joan Maynard: I welcome the new clause and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that it is important that there should be adequate enforcement of the codes of practice. That will require an adequate number of inspectors which will obviously cost more, but when people's health is at stake, we should not be deterred by costs.
Because of the great dangers of pesticides and the new methods of farming, we need rigorous control over these dangerous, toxic substances. I think first of those who work in agriculture, forestry and horticulture, but consumers and wildlife are also affected. This is a matter of tremendous importance.
The vast majority of pesticide users are the workers in the industry and there is no statutory provision for paid time off work for training. Because of the dangers of many of the toxic substances, employees should be properly trained in their use and should be given paid time off work to receive that training. There should be statutory provision for such time off for all employees required to use or handle the pesticides. There should be no difficulty about that, because the training could be done through the agricultural training colleges, the industry's training board, the national proficiency test council, the TUC or the appropriate trade union. However, the training should not be organised by the pesticide manufacturers who have a vested interest in the matter.
Proper training is missing from new clause 2.1 am glad that the new clause has been tabled, but I feel strongly that workers should be given proper training before using dangerous toxic substances.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Lady suggested, perhaps inadvertently, that training should not be given by manufacturers. However, manufacturers already do a tremendous amount of training and are very concerned about the training of operators. I would not want the House to get the impression that that valuable work in research and development and in the training of operators has not been recognised.

Miss Maynard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate my nervousness about training by manufac-turers. He cannot deny that they have a vested interest in the sale of chemicals and I should be happier if the training were organised through the agricultural training board or the agricultural institutes. They are more likely to give adequate and proper training.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On behalf of the alliance parties, I welcome the Government's agreement to include new clauses 1 and 2 in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who served on the Committee, has asked me to say how glad he is that the Government have made so many amendments to the Bill. He thought that the Committee was one of the most constructive on which he had ever served.
I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that codes of practice are necessary. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that they would be fairly


cheap, if not free. I have with me a guide to the Poisonous Substances in Agriculture Regulations 1984, which retails at £4.20. I hope that the codes of practice will be cheaper.
No doubt the guide should be read carefully by farmers throughout the country, but I doubt whether many will read all 50-odd pages and whether many copies of the guide will be found on our farms. Section IV of the guide includes the only recommendation about the protection of the public in the use of poisonous substances. It says:
Do not spray in unsuitable conditions because of the danger of spray drift, or in hot still weather, as unpredictable vapour drift may occur.
It says that the safest condition may be checked with a simple anemometer. I have been on many farms in my constituency and elsewhere and have seen much equipment lying in corners, but I have yet to see even one anemometer. I suspect that there are few in Britain. The guide explains how the safest condition may be checked without an anemometer and adds:
Advance warning will allow neighbouring farmers and bee-keepers to protect livestock and honey-bees. Warning occupiers of adjacent domestic premises will also allow them, their children, pets and personal items which may become soiled or contaminated, to be safeguarded.
That is all good stuff and it would, indeed, be nice to warn neighbours, but there is no obligation to do so. However, the provision of such information in a simpler, more readily available form would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am happy to accept the new clause, which was drafted by parliamentary counsel in response to an initiative of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in Committee. I believe that it will be a useful addition to the Bill and will result in greater parliamentary participation in the regulation of pesticides.
The content of the proposed new codes will depend on the outcome of negotiations later this year on the implementation of part III. Obviously, we shall draw to some extent on existing codes issued by my Ministry and on those already operated voluntarily by the industry.
We shall have to ensure that the new codes do not overlap other statutory codes issued under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We shall be glad of the participation of hon. Members in the process of approval. The Ministry will discuss distribution with all interested parties so that they get to everybody who needs them. The hon. Gentleman asked that the codes be made available free or at a nominal cost. I cannot guarantee charges at this stage, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Highway Code is priced modestly.
Several hon. Members have aired their anxiety about training. We have made real progress on training and certification. Hon. Members have expressed their conviction that people who use pesticides should be trained appropriately. The hon. Member for Pontypridd said:
There is a general principle that it is desirable that people using a toxic substance such as a pesticide should be trained in its use.—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 23 April 1985; c. 267.]
We have accepted the point and stressed that the Bill has an important part to play in achieving the result — in

general terms by introducing the requirement to act safely when applying pesticides and, more particularly, through our stated intention that those who apply pesticides commercially as their main business must demonstrate the appropriate level of skill training and supervision of those who apply the products. Health and safety at work legislation already has a major impact in terms of human safety.
The House has also accepted that it is reasonable to draw distinctions between those who apply pesticides as their main business and those, particularly farm workers, whose use of these products may be only occasional. I should stress that under this legislation the pressure will be on the farmer as well as on the professional operator.
It is likely that the codes of practice will advise on the appropriate level of skill to suit different circumstances, and the farmer as employer or operator will be wise to take account of this advice. As we said in Committee, there are several sources of training—the ATB, the chemical and machinery manufacturers and the local education authorities—but we will be discussing with the ATB in the first instance the practical problems in a programme to extend training to all those who need it.
Certification is the other side of the same coin in many ways, but there is one aspect which may worry hon. Members — the future of BASIS. Hon. Members reminded the Committee of the good work done by BASIS and that the manufacturers' and the merchant organisa-tions felt strongly that BASIS should continue. We did not really need reminding: we were already keen to create conditions in which BASIS could continue to operate, which was why we came forward with the idea of the requirement for distributors to show proof that their premises are up to standard and that their staff are appropriately trained and supervised. We still believe that that is the right approach. I am pleased to learn that BASIS is responding to this possibility by giving itself a stronger base through direct elections of its board members and by preparing to alter its character to that of a certification scheme designed to furnish proof of achieving standards on the lines that we have it in mind to require. These are important changes and will, I believe, leave BASIS well equipped to serve the industry under the statutory scheme.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about BASIS, and the industry too, will be grateful. In view of my hon. Friend's strong support for BASIS, will she tell those members of it who might be considering withdrawing from the scheme because of the Bill that they should remain in it and try to strengthen it by their own membership?

Mrs. Fenner: I hope that what I have said will give them just the conviction that they need. The Bill will put responsibility for achieving specified standards on the industry. It is for the industry to respond as it thinks best. There might be different ways of achieving the same thing, but all will require some organisation. That is why we welcome the signs that the industry is preparing to organise itself and why we shall co-operate in the process.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned the number of inspectors. I shall not challenge the figures that he gave, but merely say that the Bill increases the numbers in response to what the Health and Safety Executive said it needs to carry out these statutory duties. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. John: I thank the hon. Lady for her positive reaction. She has made it clear that we are in the business of motor car manufacture. We have made the machinery — the Bill — which is good. The rest depends on the quality of the driver, the regulations and the code of practice.
I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising that Members of Parliament should be involved. We have shown a deep and abiding interest in the Bill's future and could help the Government in their deliberations. The problem about BASIS is one that I mentioned in connection with wood treatment. The danger is that, when statutory provision is made, the relevant voluntary body starts to fall apart. BASIS depends on high membership.
I agree that the agricultural training board is by far the best body to give farm workers necessary advice and training, but BASIS has provided an excellent scheme for some suppliers and merchants, and it should be continued. I should hate to think that we were doing anything to undermine it. I hope that the Government will continue to consider how to strengthen BASIS and how to avoid the possibility of its being undermined.
We moved some amendments to give BASIS statutory recognition because of this very fear. It will be up to the Government to show that a voluntary body can exist under a statutory framework. I also commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

POWER TO MAKE EMERGENCY ORDERS

Sir John Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'or mayߦ have been'.
The amendment tightens up the Bill. The Bill is imprecise, largely because of the number of orders that will necessarily flow from the Act. There is much discretion in clause 1, which provides:
if in the opinion of a designating authority
and, one line later,
there has been or may have been".
That allows far too much scope for the designating authority. One of the problems is that the designating authority could make wider use of the powers than is envisaged. Therefore, in all modesty, I suggest that the amendment will improve the Bill. The words "in the opinion of in line 8 give sufficient discretion, and there is no need for a further imprecise phrase.
We appreciate that the Bill must be discretionary in many ways, but we must take every opportunity to tighten it where possible. If the amendment is not made, the designating authority may be tempted to widen the scope of its activity "just in case".
We had an interesting debate in Committee about the possible effects of a designation order, and I shall not dwell today on the possible consequences for smallholders, farmers, horticulturists and others. They could be severely hit if such an order was made at a time when crops were available for marketing. If it was made when soft fruit, such as strawberries, was ready for picking, it could bring financial disaster for the producer.
My hon. Friend the Minister suggested in Committee that risks of that kind could be covered by insurance. I

have a later amendment seeking to set up a compensation system to cover cases in which an order is made when no pollution has actually occurred, so I shall deal with the insurance question when we reach that point. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will accept this little amendment. If the amendment is made, it will encourage the designating authority to restrict its actions to the narrow area affected by a possible event. It will remove the temptation to place an embargo on movements in a much greater area "just in case."
Farmers cannot obtain insurance against such an event and the Government have not yet agreed to set up a compensation fund. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that she was confident that the Government would make orders only when there had been a hazardous release. If that is so, why do they need power to make orders when there may or may not have been such a release?

Mr. John Carlisle: I rise briefly to support the modest little amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). The four words in question are an important element at the start of the Bill, and then-removal would tighten the Bill and its interpretation.
There is great concern in the industry about the whole question of compensation and insurance—a subject to which we shall return later — and it is felt that the powers and the rules are far too wide. The amendment is both modest and short, but it well addresses the concern expressed. If we wish to ensure that the Bill is accepted by farmers and other trades, we must be conscious of the risk of things going wrong on inspection. The realms of the possible and the impossible have been discussed in the House many times. I believe that this comes within the realm of the possible and that the words in question should be deleted.

Mrs. Fenner: As drafted, clause 1(1) enables Ministers to make an emergency order to protect the public if, in their opinion, there has been a release of hazardous substances or if there may have been such a release. The amendment would narrow the scope for action at the ▪ discretion of Ministers. They could still act if, in their opinion, there had been an escape of a dangerous substance, but they could not act if there merely might have been such an escape. It is difficult to judge the practical effect of the amendment, as any action would still depend on the opinion of Ministers and not necessarily on fact proven beyond all doubt.
I have two criticisms of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). First, the fact that its effect is uncertain must make it undesirable as law. Secondly, the Bill, as drafted, accurately states the Government's intention. If Ministers believe that
there has been or may have been
an escape or release of hazardous substances, they have a duty to take steps to protect the public. It is in the nature of the case that circumstances may arise in which they cannot at first be sure—hence the words "or may have been" — but if they are unsure of the full facts but believe that the public may well be at risk they should surely take precautions at once. That is the purpose of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and the House in general agree that that should be the purpose, but I believe that the amendment would weaken that purpose.
I need hardly assure the House that there is no intention of making emergency orders frivolously. The words "or may have been" are not intended to provide scope for Ministers to make orders recklessly or in the light of some remote possibility. Excessive or unreasonable action of that kind could render Ministers liable to challenge in the courts.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will agree to leave the clause as it stands and not seek to press his amendment.

Mr. John: I think that the Minister's embarrassment about this is largely of the Government's own making because in Committee they resisted the question of insurance so fiercely that the possibility of loss to the individual has become a very large issue. I believe, however, that the two subjects are severable. Therefore, although I agree very much with the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on the question of insurance and making good losses sustained by individuals, I believe that the Government are right to maintain the fallback position. An almost platitudinous example is the type of event that occurred at Seveso. If anything illustrates the maxim that time is of the essence, it is an occurrence of that nature. In circumstances of that kind, the Government must be able to act on the best information at their disposal rather than having to wait until formal proof is available.
I am therefore willing to support the Government with my voice on this occasion, but there is a price. The price for the Government should be acceptance of amendment No. 4 or amendment No. 7 to indemnify anyone who suffers damage as a result of over-enthusiastic Government demarcation of a possible Seveso-type incident. If the Government offered to indemnify people in those circumstances, I believe that half the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough would vanish immediately.

Sir John Farr: In view of what my hon. Friend said, and in the confident expectation that she will say something entirely different very shortly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8 pm

Mrs. Fenner: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9 leave out
'a release (whether or not accidental)' and insert 'an escape'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 45 and 53.

Mrs. Fenner: In Committee, I undertook to look again at whether we could reasonably expect the courts to interpret "a release of substances" as including instances where substances had escaped accidentally. I still believe this to be the case, but I agree that it is important that there should be no question of any doubt.
The Government have therefore tabled these amendments which build on a suggestion made in Committee. All references in clauses 1 and 4 to "release" would be replaced by the word "escape", and "escape" would be defined as including the "release or expulsion" of substances whether
by human agency or by any other cause".

There is a consequential amendment to the list of definitions in clause 22.

Mr. John: I spend most of my time in politics trying to live down the fact that I was a lawyer. As the House will know, lawyers are used to arguing both sides of the case. Having strongly argued that "release" was the wrong word and that "escape" was the right one, I am now tempted to reverse the process and to argue for the contrary.
I welcome the Government's acceptance of my point. This is a prime example of what the Welsh call "bwrw dy fara"—casting your bread upon the waters. I tabled a probing amendment in Committee, and the probe struck home. It revealed a drafting weakness that had to be put right. I therefore welcome the amendment very much and, despite the temptation to argue the contrary case, I must decline that brief on this occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 14, at end insert—

"escape", in relation to substances, includes their release or expulsion by human agency or by any other cause;'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mr. John: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

' (4A) The Ministers may jointly by regulations provide for the payment of compensation to any person who has incurred loss or damage as a result of the making of an emergency order in circumstances where no hazard to human health has been created in the area in which that loss or damage occurred.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—

'( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the making of an emergency order, and it is subsequently shown that no release of substances likely to create a hazard to human health through human consumption of food has taken place, the designating authority shall pay full compensation for the loss or damage.'.

Mr. John: These are the two amendments tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) which relate to insurance. We were placed in a difficulty in Committee, in that when we differed we did not do so by halves. On this occasion, the difference was whether insurance was payable when an order was made by a Minister, but where pollution did not occur, or where the area designated was wider than required. Compensation was not provided for, but the Government assured us that this was an insurable risk.
The hon. Member for Harborough and I had differing information at our disposal which showed that such an eventuality was not insurable. I would prefer amendment No. 4, which is not just amour propre, but goes slightly wider than amendment No. 7. It is therefore only right that I should highlight the difference between the two amendments.
Whether or not the polluter can be identified is a separate question. Both these amendments relate to cases where a person has suffered loss and damage because Ministers have made an emergency order that goes beyond what is required. There are two possible scenarios. First, there might be no escape of a harmful substance or no occurrence might be evident. That is always possible so long as the words which the hon. Member for Harborough criticised remain in the Bill. Secondly, an escape could happen, but the area covered by the order might extend further than the area affected by the escape.
As I understand amendment No. 7, it will affect only the first example — where no escape of a harmful


substance took place. However, if the Minister made an order covering half a geographical county and loss occurred in the other half, it is right that the same principles should apply. That is why I prefer my amendment to that of the hon. Member for Harborough. I know, however, that he and I are at one on the sentiment behind these amendments.
The Government adopted a Maginot-line-type defence. Indeed, they had three separate lines of defence, any one of which they called on freely.

Mr. Ashdown: I seek some clarification from the hon. Gentleman. He said that his amendment was drafted with the intention of covering a designated area within which damage had not taken place or, alternatively, cases arising from the fact that the designated area was so large that some people were not affected whereas others were. If that is so, the word "area" in amendment No. 4 can be capable of being read in two different ways, and perhaps the word "place" would be better as the Bill uses the word "area" as meaning a designated area.

Mr. John: In fact, we are dealing with a designated area, because the Minister must designate it before the right to compensation can arise. An area must be set aside as having had a Seveso-type escape. A food producer may suffer a loss because of the designation of the area, even though his part of the area suffered no injury by reason of the escape.
There are two possibilities. First, there may be no escape even though the Minister has made an order. Secondly, the Minister could make an order in respect of an area, part of which is not affected by the escape. In my view, both situations are admirably covered by my amendment.
Since we debated the Bill in Committee, my research has shown that in this case the risk is uninsurable. Do the Government agree? All the evidence points to the fact that that is so. As well as being in uninsurable in principle, it is equally uninsurable because of the expense of the premiums. The NFU briefing and Farmers Weekly suggest that the Government have accepted that argument and have moved away frm their repeated assertion in Committee that this was a perfectly insurable risk.
The second defence is that the Government would not lightly make such an order—that they would never make such a mistake. One does not have to be a cynic or to be particularly partisan to know that Governments of all parties make mistakes when designating orders and regulations. If Ministers doubt that, I merely refer them to the social security regulations which were due to come into force on 19 December last but which have recently been declared illegal because the proper consultation procedure was not observed. Mistakes can be made. We cannot rely upon Government infallibility to get us through.
It is said that legal action is possible. I am doubtful about that because if the polluter were sued he would have the defence that the damage occurred because of the Government making the order rather than because of any wrongful act or attitude by him. How, and under what head, could the person affected by damage sue the Government? Would the person accuse the Government of negligence? He could certainly have the order put aside, but that would not entitle him to compensation and it would be of little use in terms of financial loss if all that he could prove was that the order was ultra vires or mistaken.

How would compensation be awarded against a Minister who made such an order? The Government made commitments to liaise with industry. What are the results? It is doubtful that a legal action would succeed because such an action would be expensive and speculative. In the two specific cases under which the Government make an order alleging that an escape is taking place when no such escape takes place, or make an order in relation to an area affected by such an escape, part of which is not affected by the escape, the Government should take the consequence of that order. They should say to the people who suffer damage through no fault of theirs—they are the innocent parties whatever view is taken—that they are able and willing to provide compensation. If such a provision will never be used it will cost the Government nothing to concede the principle.

Sir John Farr: I back 100 per cent. what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said in his usual clear way. There is much to be said for his amendment No. 4 in preference to my amendment No. 7, because his amendment covers what will happen when there has been a release and producers outside the affected area suffer a loss.
I tabled amendment No. 7 as a result of discussions in Committee, when the Minister assured me that such risks by producers when no escape had taken place would be covered by insurance. I wrote to Lloyd's. The chairman of Lloyd's underwriters' non-marine association told me in a letter:
I have spoken with a number of my colleagues in the market relative the question you ask and regret to say that the consensus of opinion is that there will be little likelihood of a policy to protect the destruction of goods following an Emergency Order, which subsequently proved to be unnecessary, being available in the Market. One has to say that the market is already struggling with a number of problems as a result of possible pollution losses and the truth of the matter is that it probably has not come to terms with exactly how the cover should be provided following an action or pollution incident. As a result, the thought of providing cover for damage which may have occurred when pollution did not, I believe, is a remote possibility.
That clear statement prompted me to table amendment No. 7. The statement destroys the Minister's argument in Committee when she said that such risks were insurable. They are not. I hope that she will accept either amendment No. 4 or my amendment No. 7. If she does, she will gain a good deal of confidence among many food producers throughout the country.

Mr. Ashdown: I support the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and his amendment No. 4. Like the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), I prefer amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 7 because it covers the case when no release has taken place and where a release has taken place when the area designated is wider than thought necessary at the time.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that the question of loss to the public was one of the key unresolved issues, and I agree. However, another key issue is involved. I hope that the Minister will agree with the hon. Member for Harborough, because in Committee insurance was a key defence in the Government's argument in favour of not accepting the need for compensation. That is no longer an argument, because such events are uninsurable.
There is a flaw in the drafting of amendment No. 4. The words cover only incidents when no release has taken place. The amendment states:


no hazard to human health has been created in the area in which that loss or damage occurred.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd means to use the words "at the place" where the loss or damage occurred. I hesitate to take issue with him, but I think that he means the designated area, which might be some distance away. It would be clearer if the words were not "in the area" but "in the place".

Mr. John: If the principle is accepted, it will be easy for the Government to correct the wording.

Mr. Ashdown: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would say that, because the principle is important. I hope that the Government will accept the principle, because if they do that will reassure the public. I urge the Government to accept the principle, for the reasons advanced by the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Harborough, because that will strengthen the Bill and make it more reassuring.

Mr. John Carlisle: It will be no surprise to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to know that I sympathise with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). We are talking about an important aspect of the Bill—as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, one of the Bill's few omissions. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd said, mistakes can happen. It would be a brave Minister who said that such mistakes could never happen.
We all agree in principle that the polluter should pay, but in many cases—let us not forget that we are talking in the realms of possibility—it will be difficult to know exactly who is the culprit, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out how such an eventuality could particularly affect soft fruit.
The inspectors may be highly qualified to do then-work, but they may face emergency situations which have never been faced before. Might not an inspector panic and then err on the side of making recommendations which might later be discovered to have been an over-reaction, with the inspector having been over-zealous in his judgment?
As the Minister said when dealing with the previous amendment, the Government wish to protect themselves in this matter, just as we wish to protect the public, but a young, inexperienced inspector faced with a panic situation might recommend the destruction of foodstuffs on a wide scale, when in more measured circumstances such a judgment would not have been necessary.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, the possibility of being insured for such an eventuality would appear to be nil. I have little knowledge of the insurance industry. I suggest, however, that somebody somewhere might be prepared to offer insurance, but the premiums would be prohibitive. In principle, therefore, I support the Opposition amendment or the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough.
We are dealing with a vital part of the Bill. Great concern was voiced in Committee, as it has since been expressed inside and outside the trade. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to allay some of the understandable fears that have been expressed.

Mrs. Fenner: Although they are not identical, the amendments have similar purposes. That in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) would require Ministers to pay compensation where they had made an emergency order as a precaution, though it turned out that no release of substances had taken place. The Opposition amendment would provide for compensa-tion where there may or may not have been an escape of substances but it turned out that there had been no hazard to human health.
I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. Consider, first, the case postulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough where an order is made, even though no escape of dangerous substances has taken place. The case is highly unlikely, but it is conceivable. It is conceivable that some incident — say, at a chemical plant—might lead Ministers and their scientific advisers to believe that the public was or might be at risk. They would then take precautionary measures. The House will agree that that would have been the right course, even if it was subsequently discovered that there had been no danger.
As I said, the case is highly unlikely. It is even more unlikely that the measures involved would be of long duration. It should be remembered that the Bill gives Ministers powers to vary and to make exceptions to meet circumstances. In other words, it is a highly flexible measure. As soon as the true facts were established, the emergency measures would be withdrawn.
In the case that we are considering, the cost could hardly be great. However, that cost would be for the purpose of making sure that people near the incident were safe. No reasonable person could resent the cost and inconvenience of short-lived measures to make sure that people were safe.
The same applies in the circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). In the possible case which Opposition Members have in mind, where an escape of substances has indeed occurred but is later found to be harmless, there would naturally be more likelihood that the safety measures would be kept in operation longer than in a case where nothing had escaped. Even so, it would not be long before the investigating officers studying the incident established that anxiety was needless.
In Committee, I pointed out that the Government were discussing the question of insurance with representatives of the insurance industry and that I would say more on that subject. We have not argued that it would be possible to insure against the possibility of measures being taken following an event which caused no damage or against a false alarm—the subject of the amendment—bearing in mind that the Government must still adopt the rule of safety first. But the safety first measures would not have to be of long duration and, therefore, they would not be costly.
More generally on the question of insurance, the Bill does not alter liability for loss or damage caused by an escape of dangerous substances. The responsibility remains with the potential polluter under ordinary principles of law. My officials have had a series of valuable meetings with representative organisations of the insurance industry, and one point to emerge is that, apart from the civil nuclear industry, where there are special


statutory arrangements, those who may incur third party liability have already assessed their risks and made appropriate insurance arrangements.
It is true, however, that the Bill may have the effect of increasing the cost of the consequences of an escape of substances, because of measures that Ministers might take under part I, but that aspect should not be exaggerated. The Bill is intended only to make sure that the safety measures that responsible citizens would probably adopt anyway could, if necessary, be imposed by Ministers. It will also enable Ministers to give prompt leadership in an emergency, and the public would probably welcome that, too.

Mr. Ashdown: Assume that there is a fire at a chemical plant with a good deal of ash falling—as in the case of Flixborough—on the surrounding countryside. It might take some days for the analysis of the ash to be completed to discover whether it was inert. At Flixborough it was found to be inert. It might be necessary in such a case for the action to cover a much broader area than, strictly speaking, was necessary at the time. What would be the plight of those in that designated area who had suffered disadvantage or loss as a result of sensible precautions taken by the Government in those circumstances?

Mrs. Fenner: It is possible to insure against the consequences, for example, of fire, explosions, and so on. Such matters might cause an escape of dangerous substances, with the need to take measures to restore safety. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at Flixborough the dust was found to be inert and could be washed off, so that would not have come under part I of the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: While the ash at Flixborough proved to be inert, the results could not, I think, be covered by insurance, because no loss or damage was caused by the ash. Any loss or damage was caused by sensible action taken by the Government on a safety basis to ensure that time allowed for the ash to be analysed.

Mrs. Fenner: I am assured that it is possible to insure against the consequences of fire, explosion, and so on— the events which may cause an escape.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one cannot insure against a wrong decision being taken by a Government inspector? That is the nub of the amendment.

Mrs. Fenner: A wrong decision is unlikely, albeit conceivable. Ministers would want to give prompt leadership in an emergency, but that would not alter the measures that needed to be taken. As the Government have already stated, it would be up to business men and the insurance industry to consider, once the Bill is on the Statute book, whether they need to revise their existing insurance. The Government see no reason to alter—

Mr. John: It is a return to the Committee stage on ice. Having said that the Government realise that the risk is not insurable, the Minister is saying now that it is for the insurance industry and the persons involved to make arrangements once the Bill is passed. As the risk is not insurable, is the Government's maxim to be that the polluter and the sufferer must pay?

Mrs. Fenner: We believe that it is the legal responsibility of the potential polluter. We made that clear several times in Committee. The Bill is not on the statute book. Whatever the actions of insurers would have been heretofore, they will be confronted with different circumstances once the Bill is on the statute book. The Government see no reason to alter their opinion that the courts would regard the effects of an emergency order made under the Bill as a foreseeable consequence of an escape of dangerous substances, and the legal responsibil-ity of the potential polluter.
Again, as the Government have said, the courts could hold the Government responsible for the loss or damage—

Mr. John: In what way?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman asks, "In what way?" For loss or damage caused by an unreasonable or excessive use of the powers in part I. The issue of insurance does not arise there.

Mr. John: The Minister said that if there is no escape, the polluter has created a foreseeable risk and therefore given rise to the order. If there is no escape, the polluter has done nothing. There is no pollution. There is no entitlement to damages that I can discover, although other actions for a declaration against the Minister for wrongful use of power could be taken. It is no consolation to a farmer who has lost £20,000 in destroyed crops to say that he can obtain an order saying that the Minister was wrong if he can obtain no damages.

Mrs. Fenner: I can only reiterate that my advice—it was outlined again in another place—is that the courts could hold the Government responsible for loss or damage caused by an unreasonable or excessive use of the powers contained in part I. There is no issue of insurance there.
Discussions held between my Department and the insurance industry have covered the position of the possible polluter and sufferer. They have shown the need to be clear about what is being asked. Pollution as such is not insurable, and the Government have never envisaged that insurance policies would be likely to give cover expressly against the cost of any measures which might be taken by Ministers at any time under the Bill.
However, as I said to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), it is possible to insure against the consequences of fire, explosion, and so on, and those are the matters which may cause an escape of dangerous substances and consequential measures to ensure or restore safety. I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. John: I: am worried that the Minister should take that line. I do not think that it is a reasonable or fair response. It is merely a reiteration of what we were treated to in Committee. Nothing new has happened. In Committee, the hon. Lady said:
It is for the people concerned to protect themselves by proper insurance and the legislation must not interfere." —
[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 21 March 1985; c. 55.]
I believe that I can speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and other hon. Members when I comment that the Government are saying that in those circumstances people can pay for the pleasure of suffering damage from the mistaken use of Government power. I do not believe that to be right. I should not quarrel with the


sincerity of the Minister who made an order, but mistakes should be paid for. They cannot be insured against. I do not believe that the Government and the Minister can seriously pretend that they can be insured against.
If the Minister is suggesting that once there is an Act the insurance companies will take a radically different view, all I can say is that the quality of advice that she has received is not such as to impress me. I do not believe that the insurance companies will suddenly say, "We know that we have said all along that this risk is uninsurable, but now that it is an Act of Parliament it is insurable." It is or it is not a risk. That is the calculation of the insurance companies. It does not matter to them whether it is covered by an Act of Parliament. It may happen once in a million, once in a thousand, once in a hundred years, or never, but it is wrong just to say, "That is too bad," where the Minister makes an order and no escape is subsequently shown to have occurred and an innocent grower has suffered loss from the making of the order.
We are trying to protect people, but we cannot protect people properly by sentencing others to suffer financial consequences which may occur only once in a hundred years. However, once in a hundred years, if bankruptcy is the result, is more than the price that the House of Commons should be willing to pay for the wrongful use of ministerial power.

Mr. Ashdown: I wonder whether I can tempt the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) a little further. If we require the insurance companies to do something when the Bill becomes law, one of the factors that they will take into account will be the nature of the Minister's decisions. In other words, they will have to insure against a wrong decision taken by a Minister. We might reach the ludicrous position where insurance companies alter their premiums according to the views of the Minister taking the decision. Ultimately, they are insuring against wrong decisions taken by Ministers. Premiums might alter as Ministers changed office.

Mr. John: I can understand that with this Government there might be a principle of weighted premiums. The view of the insurance companies will not be changed because we have passed a Bill. They are under no greater or lesser responsibility to guard against the risk when the Bill is an Act than they were before. Their calculation is based upon whether the risk is insurable and, even if it is vaguely insurable, whether the premium is so excessive that it would price them out of the ordinary market. It is clear beyond peradventure that the Government are being unfair and are being seen to be unfair.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'release or suspected release' and insert 'escape or suspected escape'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'release or suspected release' and insert 'escape or suspected escape'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Clause 4

POWERS OF OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 5, line 24, leave out 'a release' and insert 'an escape'—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mrs. Fenner: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 16, leave out from 'Act' to 'may' in line 17 and insert—
'(2A) An investigating officer or an enforcement officer.'.
The amendment is designed to correct an anomaly following amendments made in Committee to clarify the powers and duties of investigating and enforcement officers under part I.
At present, investigating and enforcement officers may be authorised to perform various functions under part I, including giving directions and taking action under clause 2(3), but only enforcement officers may seize things for the purpose of performing those functions. The amendment extends the power of seizure also to investigating officers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

REQUIREMENT OF LICENCES FOR DEPOSIT OF SUBSTANCES
AND ARTICLES IN THE SEA ETC.

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 16, at beginning insert—
'(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect with a view to reducing the use of deposit in the sea as a means of disposal of industrial waste and sewage sludge.
(2).'•
Our purpose in moving the amendment is to declare our intention. We feel that it is right and proper that we should put in statute form our commitment to reduce the amount of industrial waste and sewage sludge that we as a nation dump into the sea.
As I have repeatedly alleged, we treat and regard the seas around us in a different light from our neighbours, especially in relation to sea disposal. That is not only my opinion. The Royal Commission on environmental pollution, in its 10th report, said in paragraph 4.100:
the United Kingdom, with its long coastline and strong tides, sees both environmental and economic advantages in making use of the capacity of the seas to take waste materials. Other countries, with shorter and more vulnerable coasts, take a more pessimistic view of the possible damage
The commission recommends
that the Government should respond positively to the initiative of the Federal German Government and the Commission of the European Communities concerning the North Sea, and should promote international sponsorship of a review by an independent group of experts.
I have already quoted earlier this evening the attitude of the Dutch Ministry. We must take cognisance of our own record. It appears that in Britain we use the seas as a dumping and disposal ground because it is all too easy to do so. In that respect, we are becoming increasingly isolated. Unless we are very careful, we shall suffer an international diplomatic and political backlash and lose a great deal of good will because we are not prepared to treat industrial waste disposal and sewage sludge disposal in the way that our neighbours do.
8.45 pm
As the Minister knows, at the international conference on the protection of the North sea, which was held in Bremen in November last year, several countries joined in


a call for an immediate ban on all dumping in the North sea. Britain opposed it. I urge the Government to accept that there is a growing body of feeling which resents the way in which our Government seem not to be active in discouraging dumping. Unless we are careful, the North sea, in spite of its strong currents and its tidal systems, will eventually be in the same condition as the Mediterranean. I hope that the House is 100 per cent. against that prospect.
We believe that the pressure is now on Britain, and that is why we are moving the amendment. It is a declaration of the Opposition's intent. We must reduce dumping. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
I should like to remind the Government of the extent of dumping. Of all the industrial waste dumping in the North sea, almost 29 per cent. comes from Britain. The other 13 signatories account for only two-thirds of it. It is not only the amount that is worrying. The diversity of it causes great concern. All too often countries dump industrial waste when there is no easy alternative method of disposal. Even so, many of those countries are now taking determined steps to counter the practice.
I have the statistics for dumping licences issued by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for 1981. The 94 dumping licences were for a wide range of industries. Although the figures for 1981 show that there has been a reduction in the quantity of dumping from over 600,000 tonnes to over 400,000 tonnes, and that is welcome, it must not be seen as indicating a move away from dumping, because the respected ENDS report says that that reduction appears to reflect lower output and plant closures rather than a sustained attempt to seek alternative disposal outlets. We are using the method of dumping because it is the easy way out, and there can be no doubt about that.
In the report on the effects of the Oslo convention, the attitude of other countries is shown. Each country contributed a chapter to the report with regard to industrial waste. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands make clear their commitment to reduce the extent of sea dumping. Finland, Iceland, Norway, Portugal and Sweden undertake not to indulge in the dumping of industrial waste. Only Britain and the Irish Republic take a different view.
It is clear that other European countries are prepared to take, and are taking, action, but there is no sign that we are prepared to do so. There is no sign that the British Government are perturbed. That is why we are moving our amendment, and I hope that the House will feel able to accept it.
In Denmark, only one plant has been authorised to dump industrial waste, and Denmark's Minister of the Environment has recently taken steps to withdraw that dumping permit. The Belgians take a similar line. France makes the point that it has three plants producing phosphoric acid which dump a large amount of waste. They have been ordered by the prefect of Seine Maritime to reduce their discharges by 25 per cent.
West Germany is an industrial country of about the same size as Britain and with the same sort of industry, but of late it has taken some progressive attitudes towards pollution of the air and of the sea. The report states:
The Federal Republic of Germany regards its national legislation, but also the London and Oslo Conventions, as the decisive tools for terminating waste disposal at sea (dumping and incineration) as soon as possible. The Federal Republic will end

the dumping of waste from titanium oxide production—these are the only wastes still dumped at sea with a licence from responsible German authorities".
The Government claim that they will eliminate it by 1989 at the latest.
The chapter on the Netherlands states:
it is the Government's ultimate objective to end the dumping of chemical waste altogether, if at all possible, at the earliest opportunity.
The chapter on the United Kingdom states:
The United Kingdom approach to dumping at sea is essentially a pragmatic one of resource management based on the premise that the sea has an important part to play in the management of wastes and that its capacity to dilute and disperse waste may be used but not exceeded.
What do we mean by a pragmatic approach? Many people could rightly interpret that as meaning the easiest approach, the soft option, or the cheapest way.
The Government would do well to reflect on the recommendation of the Royal Commission in its 10th report, which on page 183, in recommendation 7.20, states:
Foresight and prudence suggest that the United Kingdom should reappraise its stance on irretrievable discharges to the sea of toxic substances.
The information is there, which is why we feel that it is right and proper to insert the amendment in the Bill. If, in respect of industrial waste, the country and Governments of both parties have acted in a manner which is less than responsible and has caused great anxiety to many users of the sea, such as fishermen, we have acted worse on sewage sludge.
With the exception of the Republic of Ireland, we are the only nation of the Oslo signatories which dumps sewage sludge at sea. Indeed, 98·8 per cent. of sewage sludge dumped in European waters is dumped by the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. I suggest that we dump sewage sludge at sea because it is the easiest answer. It is worrying that the percentage is increasing. My figures — again they are slightly out of date — show that, whereas in 1975 we dumped 23 per cent. of our domestic sewage sludge in the sea, by 1980 it had increased to 31 per cent. On the other hand, sewage sludge rightly used for agricultural purposes fell from 50 per cent. to 43 per cent.
Obviously, there are dangers and difficulties about the use of sewage sludge, and the cheapest and easiest way to dispose of it is to put it into the sea. On the other hand, if we use it for agricultural purposes there is the problem of the metal content. No one should run away from that point. With the exception of lead, the level of mercury, cadmium and zinc in sewage sludge has been cut by half in the seven years from 1975.
We accept that the metal content poses a problem, but, equally, if every country but the United Kingdom finds it unacceptable to dump sewage sludge in the sea and can find alternative positive uses for it, there must be something in their line of argument. One way in which we have fallen down is that we are not spending sufficient money on research and development for the use of sewage sludge. It can be a valuable asset and is used in many countries for different purposes. Research and development, some of which is bound to be speculative and long-term, cannot be sustained without Government funding. The Government should be spending money on research and development in that area.
To sum up our aims, I shall quote a former United Kingdom chairman of the Oslo commission, who in 1981 told the conference that there
should be a revolution in our attitudes so that through technical advances, sewage sludge comes to be recognised as a valuable by-product for recycling instead of a waste product for which disposal routes have to be found.
We have tabled the amendment simply because we believe that, unless Britain is prepared to take action, the North sea will become the cesspool of Europe. No one wishes that to happen.

Mr. Ashdown: I join the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in commending the amendment to the House. It calls for the progressive reduction of sea dumping and has been moderately drafted. It does not require that that should happen, but merely states that we should take action with a view to that end. The action that we would presumably have to take under the Bill would merely be aimed at that end. Surely, the Government would agree with that. They may not be able to achieve that end, but they must agree with taking action with that view in mind.
The amendment refers to sewage sludge and industrial waste. Although it does not specifically mention waste from nuclear industry, I assume that it is included under industrial waste. I shall concentrate on that subject. It is a pity that it is not mentioned specifically.
As the House knows, the dumping of waste from Britain's nuclear industry has temporarily been suspended pending an international review which is to be completed this year. The international review pending is revealed to those of us who have examined the facts as cosmetic. In reality, the comments of the Minister, the industry and most people who have spoken on the industrial side show that it is widely forecast that dumping will soon resume. Indeed, in Committee the Minister said:
We believe that sea dumping is a safe and acceptable method of dispsal as long as it is carried out in accordance with international agreements." — [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 28 March 1984; c. 117.]
Why is the Minister waiting for the international review to be completed if he has come to the conclusion that dumping nuclear waste at sea is safe?
The radioactive waste management committee makes the same point in its evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment. It states:
it seems unlikely that international reviews will come up with new scientific evidence.
The industry in the form of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in evidence to the same Committee stated:
Sea disposal is used for only a small volume of low and intermediate level wastes but it is very suitable for certain types of wastes.
I shall return to the various types shortly. It therefore appears that the United Kingdom will resume sea disposal in 1986.
Many of us who are opposed to the dumping of nuclear waste in our oceans have come to the conclusion that the Government have already made up their mind on the matter and that they are merely going through the motions. The present position is nothing short of cosmetic. In due course, there will be an increase in the dumping of nuclear waste at sea.
In its evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, the UKAEA numbered among the items to be dumped
certain bulky items from the future decommissioning of redundant plant".
I wonder what those bulky items are that are so coyly described. They might be oil drums, but there is evidence that they are likely to be something much more significant in size. Indeed, it is highly likely that we are talking about the dumping of major parts of power stations. As we know, the Magnox power stations were designed for a working life of only 20 years. According to a parliamentary answer on 8 May 1985, five Magnox power stations have already been operating for more than 20 years, and by next year, four more will have been operating for more than 20 years. Therefore, by next year we shall have nine nuclear power stations which, according to the UKAEA, will be
bulky items from the future decommissioning of redundant plant".
9 pm
It is possible that the lives of those power stations will be extended by five years, but there is no doubt that there will soon be a massive decommissioning programme of nine nuclear power stations. I suspect that the UKAEA is talking about filling the oceans with massive chunks of nuclear junk. The reactor of a Magnox power station is estimated to weigh tens of thousands of tonnes, and I am told that an advanced gas-cooled reactor weighs 130,000 tonnes. If the Government do not accept that we should have a view towards action to reduce dumping at sea, they should tell us what they have in mind for the decommissioning of those nine plants. They cannot be buried. Are the Government reluctant to accept such an amendment because they wish to retain the possibility of dumping large parts of those power stations in the North sea?
We must realise why the amendment's call for a progressive reduction in the dumping of industrial waste in the sea is vitally important. Scientific calculations have shown that the effects of the chain reaction started by the dumping of nuclear waste may not be known for 50 years. We started dumping in 1949, so its effects have not yet come to light. Paragraph 5.8 of the Holliday report, which refers to nuclear waste dumped at a depth of 4,000 m, states that it would take 33 years for plutonium 240 to turn up and have an effect on the human cycle. That means that the first of the waste dumped in 1949 would have started to turn up in 1982. We must also consider the cancer-producing effects of such dumping, which, at the earliest, could occur in 15 years' time. The Holliday report also states that it might take 95 years for the effects of polonium 210 to come to the surface.
This is an important amendment which requires us to take action with, a view to reducing the disposal of industrial, and therefore nuclear, waste in the sea. I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) on an especially lucid speech. It served to show the country the value of the title, which he so richly deserves, of the Labour party's green spokesman. Increasingly, the Labour party has considered such matters as important, which is why we decided to have a green spokesman. There are many green issues which affect millions of people.


My hon. Friend said that Britain was almost the only Oslo convention country to dispose of sewage in the sea. That process give Britain cheaper infrastructural costs and places it in an unfair competitive position with its trading partners in every possible way. The Minister would do well to consider the position of landlocked countries. They simply do not have the sea into which to push their sewage. They have to make arrangements that are more expensive, but somehow they manage to include them in their infrastructure costs and remain competitive.
The amendment says:
The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect with a view to reducing the use of deposit in the sea as a means of disposal of industrial waste and sewage sludge.
The intention is therefore to reduce dumping at sea of low, intermediate and high-level waste. In the past few years, the dumping at sea of low-level radioactive waste has been controlled by the London dumping convention and the Dumping At Sea Act 1974. which is being repealed in part by part II. These arrangements have caused increasing international concern.
In 1983, a meeting of the London dumping convention voted to suspend dumping of low-level radioactive waste at sea. The vote was not binding, but following action by the National Union of Seamen, Britain was forced into line. The Government and the TUC then supported an independent inquiry under Professor Holliday. In November last year it published its report, which found that radioactive dumping has a low impact on the environment. However, it recommended wider interna-tional reviews. This was referred to by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). A meeting in 1983 of the parties to the London dumping convention could not decide whether the disposal at sea of high-level waste was covered by that convention. The regime is based on confusion.
I shall now point out precisely whence cometh the material about which we speak. In Britain, radioactive waste originates from four main sources — the commercial nuclear fuel cycle, the military nuclear weapons programme and defence-related activities, institutions such as hospitals or universities that use radioactive materials for chemical research purposes, and the industrial use of radio isotopes. A fifth source— uranium mining—is not found in Britain.
Some 80 percent. of radioactive waste, and potentially the most dangerous, is created by the nuclear power programme. The Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive estimates that the volume of intermediate and high-level waste is equivalent to 35,000 cu m in total. The volume is equivalent to a football pitch five metres in height. That perhaps gives the public and the House some idea of the amount of material that we are considering.
The Government's policy on radioactive waste disposal is based largely on the recommendations of the Royal Commission's sixth report of 1976 on nuclear power in the environment. In 1981, the 10th report supported a modest increase in the nuclear capacity in Britain provided that the principles for environmental protection set out in the sixth report were satisfied. Today, the Government and the nuclear industry alike recognise that finding the solution to the nuclear waste problem is the critical gap in the desire to expand the British civil nuclear programme.

Until the Royal Commission's sixth report, there was little public discussion or apparent appreciation of the problems of the radioactive waste management. It was criticised in the sixth report as showing
insufficient appreciation of long-term requirements either by government departments or by other organisations concerned … a much more urgent approach is needed, and the responsibilities for devising policy and for executing it need to be more clearly assigned".
The current proposals for the management of radioactive waste have evolved since 1977. The Royal Commission's sixth report's conclusions have led in turn to the Department of the Environment being given overall responsibility for the management of radioactive waste. But it has been plagued by a number of technical problems. They include the possibilities of a migration of radioactive elements through geological processes, also the possibility of disruptive geological events and also the possibilities of human intervention.
All that must be read against a background of very strong public reaction and resistance to the burying of nuclear waste in various parts of the United Kingdom. It seems that no one wants it, and that is the story we learn from Stockton-Billingham and Bedfordshire, the last two sites that have been identified for waste disposal.
The truth is that no one wants nuclear waste, and therefore I believe that the Government should set about establishing a more realistic alternative.
It was put most effectively by NIREX in its journal, Plaintalk, of May this year. In an editorial headed "Plaintalking", it asked:
Why the delay on new sites? Following the Government statement in the House of Commons in January asking NIREX to name at least three alternative sites for investigation as possible near-surface repositories, we said in answer to questions that we hoped to name them in early summer. June is now upon us and you might well be asking, why the delay? The short answer is that it is not as easy as it looks! Our task is to find a safe and environmentally sound way of disposing of the nation's low and intermediate level radioactive waste. That means exploring lots of alternatives and studying hundreds of different locations to find one that will fulfil each very important condition for a good safe site.
My view again is that there is no solution available within the United Kingdom. There is no way of resolving the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, and we must look elsewhere and to another solution.
Before I do that, it might be wise of me to comment on the position in the United States of America and in Canada. In those countries, the practice of waste disposal is currently carried out in above-ground engineered structures. The Tennessee Valley authority, an American electrical utility, has built above-ground storage modules at the Sequoyah nuclear plant in Tennessee. Several utilities in the north-east of the United States are designing and building similar facilities. Ontario Hydro, which operates eight nuclear reactors, has built a central storage area at the Bruce nuclear reactor.
I was in America some years ago, and I went with a congressman to attend his hearings on nuclear waste disposal in Connecticut. Throughout the course of the hearings, repeatedly we were confronted with lobbies, not just anti-nuclear lobbies but local environmental lobbies, community lobbies, women's organisations and so on, all objecting to disposal arrangements for nuclear waste. It may be that they did so to some extent out of ignorance, but the point is that the public's perception of nuclear waste is that it is dangerous. Whether it is dangerous is not relevant. If the public believes that it is dangerous and if,


however much politicians and bureaucrats set out to convince people that it is not, it does not work and the case does not get over, we must face reality and find solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste which meet people's anxieties and fears.
It was on that basis that in Committee I put forward a proposal for dealing with the problem when we discussed the matter some weeks ago. I put forward the rather novel but, I repeat, serious proposition that we should identify somewhere on this earth, a small piece of land away from the great centres of population—away from the United States of America, western Europe, the United Kingdom and all the major industrialised and populated countries —a small island, perhaps. It was even said by one of my hon. Friends in a previous debate that the Falkland islands would provide a good locational solution. I do not advocate such a proposition because some of my hon. Friends might laugh at it, but in principle the Falkland islands offer a solution.
Although I do not submit the Falkland islands as a solution, there are other islands of a similar nature which, if we approached the problem in a responsible manner, could offer a locational solution for the disposal of nuclear waste. A regime should be established at that location which would be responsible for the management of waste disposal. It would draw upon the expertise of all the countries which were contributing waste for disposal at that site. The management would be responsible for planning the disposal and also for policing and security.

Mr. Stuart Randall: My hon. Friend is proposing that there should be a centralised approach to the storage of waste materials. Does he not agree that, because of the hazards that would ensue from this approach it would be better to adopt a distributive approach to the disposal of waste?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has referred to the hazards. I do not necessarily accept that the public perceive that such hazards exist. This measure is concerned with satisfying world opinion. It is not only the people of the United Kingdom who express concern about the disposal of nuclear waste. This is an international problem. The same debate is taking place in all the western countries that rely upon nuclear power. Environmental lobbies in all those countries are demanding that proper solutions should be provided to this problem. I am putting forward a single-site solution to the problems of nuclear waste. Countries throughout the world could contribute the nuclear waste that they generate and participate in policing the site.
During the earlier proceedings, the Minister of State offered to deal with the matter and to write to me. As his letter is not on the record, I want to read part of it because it sets out the Government's views on my proposition. The Minister of State said:
I find there has been talk from time to time about the possibility of international disposal facilities, and polar and desert regions have been suggested as suitable. However, much of this talk has been essentially speculative.
I have not proposed either polar or desert regions, but I understand why the Minister referred to them. He continued:
You may have seen that a Technology, Growth and Employment Working Group established by the seven Western

Summit countries at Versailles in 1982 has recently suggested that an existing international scientific organisation should review available information in order to assess the merits of optimising the number of storage and disposal sites for radioactive wastes from the points of view of costs, environmental impact and logistical considerations. They envisaged that this would be combined or co-ordinated with a conceptual study of international waste repository systems which is being undertaken by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of OECD. However the Radioactive Waste Management Committee of NEA has emphasised that the priority must lie with the development of pilot land disposal facilities at a national level … my environmental colleagues see major legal, logistical, technical and political difficulties in developing a single site to take all countries' waste.
The Minister referred to
legal, logistical, technical and political difficulties",
but it would seem to me that legal difficulties could arise only from the title to the land which is used for disposal. I should have thought that such difficulties could be dealt with quite easily within the framework of international law. Perhaps the Minister can explain to what extent such legal complications might• arise, as I understand that it is only a question of title.
Logistical difficulties were also mentioned, but the means of transportation are available. We are already transporting such material around the world. Similarly, when it comes to technical difficulties, the technology is already there. Members of Parliament, particularly those who have some connection with the nuclear industry, are besieged weekly by organisations that tell us of the advances that are being made in the technical arrangements governing the disposal of nuclear waste.
Finally, the Minister mentioned political difficulties. But if the international will is there to find a solution, there can be no political difficulties. According to the Minister's letter, the NEA has stated that the development of pilot land disposal facilities at a national level must be the priority. In suggesting that, it is sticking to the existing regime, and telling us all to keep our nuclear waste and to solve our own problems. It is saying that we should find our own sites within our own countries. But that is what the whole argument is about, because no one wants nuclear waste. I say that as a supporter of the nuclear industry. Why do we not deal with the problem? A whole industry of environmental groups has set up in this country. At the heart of their existence is the argument about the disposal of nuclear waste. Indeed, 99 per cent. of the arguments about Windscale are not about nuclear power but about nuclear waste and its disposal.
If nuclear power is to be accepted in this country, we must identify and deal with the problems that cause the public so much concern. Ministers ignore the responses of such organisations, and simply do not understand the pent-up pressure within the system. If they do not deal with that pressure, the anti-nuclear lobby will become stronger as the years go by and will eventually strangle the industry. The Government will be held responsible.

Mr. MacGregor: Judging by the phrasing of the amendment, it is simple and fairly clear. However, the debate has opened up a much more wide-ranging set of issues. Moreover, the amendment's implications are anything but clear. I hope to show that it is not only unnecessary, but that it could also prejudice the aims of part II and at times be environmentally damaging, rather than the reverse.
I shall begin by briefly examining the quantities dumped in the past few years. In Committee, I gave some


figures, but I shall give two more that bear directly on the amendment. The most recent year for which statistics are available is 1983. Judging by the definitions of the London convention, the amendment is talking about liquid industrial waste not radioactive waste.

Dr. David Clark: indicated assent.

Mr. MacGregor: I see that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) agrees, so I may, strictly speaking, be out of order when I make a few remarks about nuclear waste. But the tonnage of liquid industrial waste—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is industrial waste.

Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was putting his notes together, but I did just explain that, according to the normal conventions, the definition of industrial waste here applies to liquid industrial waste. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Shields nodded his agreement.
Between 1980 and 1983, the tonnage of liquid industrial wastes and sludges fell by 34 per cent., and that of sewage sludge by 18 per cent. I recognise that some part of that fall may be due to the level of economic activity. Nevertheless, those are very substantial reductions in the tonnage of liquid industrial wastes and sludges and of sewage sludge. Incidentally, sewage sludge certainly cannot be related in the same way to the level of economic activity.
The figures that I quoted in Committee are worth repeating. Between 1977 and 1983, the quantity of cadmium and mercury in dumped sewage sludge fell by 65 per cent. and the number of licences for dumping at sea fell by 29 per cent.
The hon. Member for South Shields mentioned incineration. The difficulties of international comparisons are demonstrated by the fact that the United Kingdom is not heavily dependent on marine incineration. In 1982, we contributed less than 2 per cent. of the total in the Oslo convention area. I shall mention sewage sludge later, but it is important to point out that our contribution on marine incineration is tiny.
The Oslo convention countries have to meet before 1990 to decide about the future of marine incineration and one of the factors that will influence their decision will be the availability of other methods of disposing of the wastes in question. I shall return to that aspect. It is too early to say what those countries will decide about marine incineration, but, whatever the decision, the Bill will give us power to implement it. As I said, we make a very small contribution to any problems caused by marine incineration.
I should ensure that I am being fair all round by admitting that the amount of colliery waste and fly ash rose between 1980 and 1983, but those solid materials are generally regarded as inert, and I think that the Opposition are more worried about liquid wastes and sewage sludge, which both show substantial reductions.
Therefore, my first comment must be that we are moving in the direction that the Opposition seek. I share the view of the hon. Member for South Shields about the need to avoid the problems that have arisen in the Mediterranean. We have made substantial progress — much more than many other countries—in dealing with industrial wastes in rivers and their pollution of the sea.
The hon. Member for South Shields, in his response to new clause 1, suggested that we had a more relaxed

attitude than our neighbours to dumping at sea and that there were suspicions that by leaving out of the original drafting of the Bill the provision that has been re-inserted by new clause 1 we were seeking to abide less by the conventions.
I refute both those suggestions. On the claim that we are less keen to abide by the conventions, I should point out that new clause 1 dealt with a narrow point about co-operative procedures — a mechanism which has never been used under the conventions. I was happy to put the provision back into the Bill, but whether new clause 1 is in the Bill has nothing to do with our willingness and enthusiasm to abide by the conventions. We already have under the Bill all the powers necessary to abide by the conventions, and I have made it clear on many occasions that we abide by them firmly.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we had a more relaxed attitude than our neighbours to dumping at sea. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that I made a long statement on the subject, but perhaps Committee Hansards are not read as widely as they sometimes deserve to be read. Therefore, I shall repeat some of the points that I made in Committee. It is relevant to point out, in relation to our responsibilities under the conventions, that we provided the chairman of the Oslo convention from 1980 to 1984 and played a leading role in gathering the scientific information for the North sea conference at Bremen. We are hosting the next conference. Those are hardly the actions of a Government unconcerned about the North sea. They show clearly that we have played a major role in the conventions.
9.30 pm
The evidence is also against the hon. Gentleman. I should like him, or others, to give some evidence to show that the United Kingdom plays the biggest polluting role in the North sea. The last North sea conference showed clearly that the major problems arose from continental rivers. I am not in the slightest complacent about the problem, but we must get the perspective right. The hon. Member for South Shields said again that we contribute 98 per cent. of the sludge dumped in the Oslo area. That sludge is only about one third of the total that we produce. Most of the rest is disposed of on land. Moreover, it represents only a tiny proportion of the heavy metals and nutrients entering the marine environment. In Committee, I said:
sewage sludge accounts at most for only 1 per cent. of the heavy metals entering the North sea.
Dumping is only a minor input into the marine environment. Even on the most pessimistic calculations, dumping, other than dredging, accounts for no more than 3 per cent. of the input of heavy metals into the North sea. The major contributors to the marine environment are the atmosphere and rivers.
When considering the biggest polluter, we must assess what types of contribution are causing the biggest pollution. Just one continental river—the Rhine-Meuse — accounts for at least three times as many heavy metals as all dumping operations. As I said in Committee:
The geographical areas about which there is the most pressing concern are the German bight and the Wadden sea, which are not affected at all by United Kingdom dumping, but are seriously polluted by inputs of the Elbe and the Rhine-Meuse —[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 28 March 1985; c. 114.]


I refute the charge that we are major polluters, and I refute most strongly the allegation that we are not worried about it.
Unlike many other inputs into the sea, dumping is subject to strict controls, the main aim of which is to ensure that the environment is protected. Dumping makes a comparatively small contribution and is subject to strict controls, so there is no significant evidence of damage around our shores or that disposal is uncontrolled. It would be wrong to make policy changes, which would often have adverse effects on other parts of the environment, without having a firm scientific basis for such changes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister says that there is no evidence of damage to our coastline. Does he not take his family to our coasts in the summer? Has he never seen the filth, the excreta, the toilet paper and the rubbish piled up on beaches? Has he not seen the material that floats in the sea, even just off some of our major resorts? Does he agree that the Government have some responsibility to deal with the problem urgently, or is he blind? Does he simply refuse to accept that there is a problem? That is what his statements imply.

Mr. MacGregor: Anybody who tries to put problems into perspective runs the risk of being accused of not bothering about some aspect of the matter. I was endeavouring to show that, in regard to the charge that we are major polluters of the North sea, many other considerations must be brought to bear if we are to get a fair picture. Of course I am concerned when I see rubbish, but I have often seen more of what the hon. Gentleman described on Mediterranean beaches when I have taken my family abroad.
Of course we are anxious to improve matters. I have given the figures which show how we are improving the situation and which distinguish us from some other countries. We put heavy emphasis—rightly, in my view —not on particular emotional charges, if I may so put it, but on strict scientific criteria. I am not arguing that we should not make improvements. I am arguing that, in enshrining certain policies in legislation, we must ensure that they are based on strict scientific criteria. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields that this is one way in which we differ from some other countries, but I believe that we are right to put that emphasis on the strict scientific criteria.
Having demonstrated that improvements are being made and that quantities have declined, why can we not accept the amendment? First, it is potentially inconsistent with the aims of part II of the Bill. Clause 8 strengthens the provisions of the Dumping at Sea Act. The need to protect the marine environment and its living resources has been the cornerstone of dumping policy since 1974. I do not think that that has been challenged, but the amendment could have the unintended effect of calling it into question. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will listen, because in developing policy we must be careful about the implications of what we are doing.
The amendment implies that quantitative reductions are the best way to protect the marine environment, but that is an oversimplification, because the sea's capacity to absorb waste varies from place to place. It may be possible to dispose of a large quantity of material at a site where

the currents are highly dispersive, but a much smaller quantity may cause problems at a less suitable site. In other words, it is more important to have regard to the capacity of each site than to concentrate entirely on total quantity. That is why the conventions emphasise the examination of site characteristics—an obligation that we implement by means of the licence conditions under clause 8.
The licensing authority often has to persuade applicants to accept particular conditions, and the willingness of applicants to go to environmentally better but probably more distant sites could well be inhibited by a provision which prevented any increase in the quantities licensed.

Mr. Ashdown: The clause to which the amendment relates refers specifically to the depositing of solids in the sea, so it covers the points raised in my intervention and that of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The Minister is putting too much emphasis on quantity. That is not what the amendment says. The amendment refers to
reducing the use of deposits in the sea as a means of disposal".
That can be read in all sorts of ways. It does not have to hang on quantity. It could hang on type or nature. It means reducing deposits in the sea as an option necessarily used by us, so the Minister's argument about quantity does not apply.

Mr. MacGregor: The amendment could refer to quantity, and many people will see it in that context; but that is not the main argument on which I rest my opposition. I was merely pointing out the danger of diminishing the impact of the Bill by insisting on the amendment. because quantity will be the factor that most people have in mind.
The far more powerful objection on which I rest my opposition to the amendment concerns the availability of alternative methods of disposal and the effect on the environment generally. The Government have tabled an amendment to clause 8 in response to an Opposition-led debate in Committee. That amendment will require the licensing authority to have regard to the practical availability of alternatives. The Opposition pressed the Government on that and I have conceded the point. In Committee, I said that I wished to give the matter further thought, and I have now tabled an amendment.
In my view, it is dangerous for the Opposition to ask us to have regard to what is feasible and practicable but then to argue that reductions in dumping at sea should be pursued regardless. I should have thought that the Government amendment went a long way towards meeting the objective of the present amendment, but by a much better and more effective route.
On a more technical point, I am somewhat surprised at what has been included in the amendment and what has been omitted. Dredgings constitute the largest tonnage and the bulk of the heavy metals—I am told that dredgings account for more than half the dumping—but they are not mentioned in the amendment. Is that because there are no practical alternatives or because, by and large, the Opposition do not regard them as damaging to the environment? I am not clear, but it is strange that one of the major contributors to dumping should have been left out of the amendment. Whatever the reason, it is clear that other wastes could fall into the same category.
Many of our conurbations are near the coast, and then-sewage sludge is dumped at sea. The alternative is to transport it by road for spreading on land. Would that be


a practical proposition in the London area? In addition, dilute liquid industrial waste is not particularly damaging to the open marine environment — the amount of harmful substances is too low for that — but the only alternative method of disposal would be discharge into rivers, where further dilution would be slower. Perhaps the considerations that have excluded dredgings should apply here as well.
I could also mention other areas that have been excluded from the amendment, such as radioactive waste, marine incineration and sub-seabed disposal. I say that only to demonstrate that, even in its own terms, the amendment is incomplete and does not deal with some of the areas that most affect pollution of the marine environment.
I have given the main arguments against the amendment, although I hope I have made it clear that I am entirely at one with the Opposition in wishing to do anything that can reduce pollution at sea.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to research into sewage sludge. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and I had an exchange on that subject in Committee, and I have written to him since. I hope he will not mind if I refer briefly to part of that response. It is worth drawing it to the attention of a wider audience as it deals with a real concern.
The main thrust of our research into the disposal of sewage sludge is to improve the treatment of sewage and to monitor its quality and the effects of current methods of disposal. I hope that the House will agree that improvements in treatment are just as important for new disposal methods as for traditional ones. They are also just as important as looking at novel sewage sludge disposal methods.
These novel methods are currently being investigated, but none has been given a high priority—certainly not as high as improving the treatment of sewage, which at the end of the day has the same beneficial effect on pollution —because their practical application is not yet proven. The types of projects under consideration are conversion to animal feed, incorporation into building materials, production of earth worms and conversion to fuels. Some of these have been tried commercially, but have so far failed because the end product was more expensive than a similar conventionally produced product.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoke of radioactive dumping. I gave the Government's position on that in Committee. It is fairly well known that we accepted the main recommendations of the Holliday report—that dumping should not resume until the various current reviews in the London dumping convention, the IAEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency were completed. The report also recommended that we should publish a comparative study of all the options for nuclear waste disposal. We have accepted all of those.
Progress is being made on the various stages of the review in the LDC and related organisations, and, as recommended by the Holliday team, the Department of the Environment is reviewing the best practicable eviron-mental option for disposal of each type of radioactive waste. The report will be shown to the team and to the radioactive waste management advisory committee, and it is hoped that it can be finalised around the end of the year. At present, we are working through the various international and national reviews on this subject. It is too

early to predict when they will be finished or what the outcome will be, but the position will be clearer by the end of the year.
The hon. Member for Workington and I had: an exchange, followed by written correspondence, about his suggestion of finding one international site to which most nuclear waste could go. I very much hope that his reference to the Falklands was a joke, because I do not want to see any headlines in the morning indicating that in any way that was a sensible suggestion. However, the hon. Gentleman greatly underestimates the difficulties. It is fairly obvious to us all that there are difficulties in finding a further national site for disposal Such difficulties are technical, logistical and, above all, political. The difficulties of achieving agreement on a single site on an international scale are formidable.
9.45 pm
I hope that I have said enough about the defects of the amendment and about the progress that we are making to persuade hon. Members against the amendment. Dumping at sea is not an easy option in the United Kingdom. We require applicants to justify their use of sea routes. The Government have amended legislation to take account of alternative methods. We would not permit dumping if there were an easy alternative. For the reasons that I have given, it would be a mistake to agree to the amendment because it could be counter-productive.

Dr. David Clark: I am disappointed with the Minister's response. A general unease is felt, not only by Opposition Members but by some people in other EEC countries. I admired the Minister's spirited defence of Government policy, but it revealed the Government's isolation.
The Minister asked for evidence that the United Kingdom is the major polluter of the North sea. The Royal Commission on environmental pollution, in paragraph 4.9, describes the estimated contaminant loads for the North sea. There is no doubt that we contribute considerably more than any other nations which border the North sea. That is well known and the recommendations make it clear that the Government should change their policy.
I recognise the improvements that have been made. Fish can now live in the Thames and the cleaning of rivers such as the Tyne has improved the quality of the environment enormously, to the benefit of the people who live near them and to the benefit of those who enjoy their leisure by the use of such rivers.
Dumping is responsible for only a small part of the pollution. Pollution affects rivers and the atmosphere and is caused naturally. However, we can do something about dumping, and we should tackle the problem. Much pollution is cumulative and if we can tackle one aspect of it we should act.
I was surprised at the Minister's defence of the sewage sludge problem. It causes inconvenience to the outer sections of the North sea and to inshore areas. Fishermen off the north coast of England will tell the Minister of their dislike of the dumping of sewage sludge only five miles off the mouth of the river Tyne. We spent millions of pounds clearing up that river so that salmon could breed there, yet sewage sludge is still being dumped 5 km or 12 km from the mouth of that river.
I thought that the Minister was reasonable when he said that sewage sludge occurs in conurbations and other built-up areas and that therefore it would not make sense to transport it by road to treat it elsewhere. As he said, many of the conurbations are by the sea, so it is easy to load the sewage on barges, and he cited the case of London.
It is equally easy for that sewage sludge to be transported into the country, where it could be treated. Landing sites around our coastline could be used to take profitable industry from some of those conurbations to rural areas for the treatment of sewage sludge. Let us not forget that in parts of the country—for example, south Yorkshire — a large percentage of sewage sludge is treated simply because it costs too much to transport it to the sea.
It is possible, therefore, to tackle the problem in the way we suggest; and that is proved not only by what happens in Britain now but by what is done in other countries. The Minister did not attempt to deny that over 98 per cent. of the sewage sludge dumped in the seas around Europe is dumped by the United Kingdom.
Our amendment states the national position. It is, in a sense, a declaration of intent. We were not convinced by the Minister's argument and I quote against him a statement made at a recent conference:
the several countries interpret the need to consider land-based disposal as mandatory, with dumping as an option in the last resort. Most Oslo Convention countries which permit industrial waste dumping do so only for a very limited number of wastes for which there are genuine difficulties in finding alternative disposable routes. This is in marked contrast to the United Kingdom's practice of accepting a wide range of wastes for sea disposal, provided they can be disposed of without unacceptable environmental charges.
That statement was made by one of the Ministers senior scientific advisers whom I will not embarrass by naming. The view of our neighbours is even more colourful. We believe that in the national interest we should clearly state our intention. That is the purpose of the amendment, and we are disappointed by the response of the Government. Amendment negatived.

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 19, leave out 'in United Kingdom waters' and insert

'within United Kingdom waters, either in the sea or under the sea-bed'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government amendments Nos. 12 to 16, 19, 20 and 54.

Mr. MacGregor: These amendments deal with sub-seabed disposal, which is one possible method of disposing of radioactive waste. As yet, its technical feasibility remains to be proved, and the legal situation is also under consideration. We are not sure whether it can be done, how it may be done, and, while agreeing that the London dumping convention is the right international forum in which to elaborate controls, we should not pre-empt its decisions. It is in these rather difficult circumstances that we are trying to legislate.
In Committee we had a very constructive debate following amendments tabled by the Opposition which would have extended the Bill's scope to cover deposits under the seabed. At that time I was hesitant about

specifying powers in a Bill for a situation for which we could not predict properly in advance, but agreed to look again at the question.
I emphasised that there was uncertainty about the technology to be used in sub-seabed disposal and about any decisions on a regulatory framework which might be made under the convention. For those reasons, I was hesitant about making specific provision now, but I accepted that if we had no provision in the Bill we would not be able to control or prohibit such activities at all. After much thought, we have come up with these amendments.
The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who mentioned this subject in Committee, will be pleased to see that we have not departed much from their original drafting. That shows that both sides of the House have been looking with open and constructive minds at the Bill, and I am grateful for the generous comments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, and of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) through the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
There are, however, a few additions, especially to deal with vehicles, which are intended to make the controls as comprehensive as possible. There are a few consequential amendments to the provisions on enforcement, on the public register of licences and to the Bill's long title.
The effect of all that is that any operation of sub-seabed disposal would be subject to the same control as would ordinary deposits at sea. That is to say, if the" operation takes place in United Kingdom waters, or if the loading takes place in the United Kingdom, or if the vehicle or vessel concerned is British, a licence will be needed. Let me emphasise again that the purpose of bringing sub-seabed disposal within the Bill is not to permit it, but to make it subject to control pending a decision in the London dumping convention. I also said in Committee that I thought an order-making power might be the best way to deal with this subject. However, I am now satisfied that the powers flowing from this amendment are very broad and that they are all we would need to put into effect any regulatory framework elaborated under the LDC. • I therefore believe that these amendments deal with all of the concerns voiced during Committee, and I commend them to the House.

Dr. David Clark: We have returned to our bi-partisan approach. I congratulate the Minister. It is agreeable to find him proposing this group of amendments so, as he said, ably drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who is such an expert at this. As the House is aware, he has a long history of drafting suitable amendments, some of which will stand the test of time and others that I dare not mention.
Some of the amendments add to the Bill. The crucial point, as the Minister has so correctly said, is the reference to the sub-seabed. Since the Oslo and London conventions and the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, technology has moved quickly. Occasionally, it is worth while stopping to remember that. When those conventions and the Dumping at Sea Bill were drafted we did not have the marine technology of oil exploration which we now have.
That technology, coupled with the nuclear waste disposal problem, have made people question the possibility of emplacing nuclear waste under the seabed. That was an argument that we advanced in Committee and we are pleased that the Government have accepted it. It


is feasible to emplace waste under the seabed. The Minister has now taken the power to grant, or refuse, licences, as he put it.
As we understood it, without this group of amendments there was nothing to stop oil companies drilling a hole under the seabed and emplacing waste therein. This group of amendments is essential. I am sure that the House will agree to them. Companies such as Ensec are pressing ahead. They may be right. It is not for us to judge. It is right that we explore every method of disposing of nuclear waste — even those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) with which not everyone agrees. It is a problem that will not go away.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is not present, made an interesting speech about nuclear waste disposal on an earlier amendment. There is a problem. Even if we decommissioned all our nuclear plants tomorrow, we would have to treat our nuclear waste. The onus is upon us all to find a suitable solution.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has anything to add that is consequent upon the Holliday report. I understand that since the report was made there has been a meeting between the Secretary of State for the Environment—at which I understand the Parliamentary Secretary was present—and representatives of the TUC. At that meeting, which I understand was very cordial —

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That at this day's sitting the Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Dr. Clark: I understand that arising out of that meeting there were to be further tests and investigations into the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. It may be that the Minister has nothing to tell us, but if he has it will be useful in discussing the amendments tonight. The Minister shakes his head, but perhaps before too long he will be able to respond.
With those few words of welcome, we greatly approve of the Government's action in moving the amendment, and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 7, line 27, after 'sea', insert
'or under the sea-bed'.
No. 13, in page 7, line 34, leave out 'in the sea within British fishery limits' and insert
'within British fishery limits either in the sea or under the sea-bed'.
No. 14, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
'(cc) for the deposit of substance or articles anywhere under the sea-bed within British fishery limits from a vehicle which was loaded in the United Kingdom with any of those substances or articles;'.
No. 15, in page 8, line 18, after 'sea', insert
'or under the sea-bed'.
No. 16, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
'(ee) for the loading of a vehicle in the United Kingdom with substance or articles for deposit from that vehicle as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (cc) above;'.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Clause 8

LICENCES

Dr. David Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 19 at end insert
'and (c) shall consider any written representations from a person objecting to the issue of that licence'.
As the Minister has reminded us, the control of pollution at sea caused by dumping and incineration is done, under the various conventions, by the issue of licences. Clause 8 lays down the criteria that a licensing authority must take into account when determining whether to issue a licence. Among the matters that the licensing authority has to take into account is the need
to protect the marine environment, the living resources which it supports … and … to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea"—
which I presume includes fishing and certain scientific activities. The clause also says that a licensing authority
may have regard to such other matters as the authority considers relevant.
We felt that a further condition should be for the right of written representation. There may be other people who have an interest in the granting or refusal of a licence, and it is only right that they should be able to make their representation in the same manner as with a land planning application. Obviously, I am not arguing that exactly the same criteria should apply to the maritime environment as to the land environment, but there is a principle that should be taken into account.
The House might be forgiven for imagining that the point is covered by schedule 3 to the Bill as schedule 3 is entitled "Licences — Right to make Representations, etc." But the right applies only to the licence holder or the would-be licence holder. That is how I read the schedule. Indeed, when it was put to the Minister in Committee, I think that that was also his reading of it.
Other interested parties should have the right to put their point of view, which would be considered together with other points of view and the other information taken into account by a licensing authority in determining whether to issue a licence.
Surely it is not too much to ask that, if someone believes that he has a legitimate interest which may be affected, he has the right to be heard. He may be a fisherman, a fish farmer whose living may depend on the susceptibilities of the quality of the water or tide, a shipper, a marine scientist or someone who wishes to challenge the scientific assertions on which the application is made.
The amendment speaks for itself and, therefore, I shall not go into great detail. Clearly, a matter of principle is involved, and in that spirit I move amendment No. 17.

Mr. MacGregor: This is an interesting amendment, and I shall attempt to speak as briefly to it as did the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to have the opportunity of explaining the Government's position on representations from the public, which the amendment allows.
Clause 8 already requires the licensing authority to consider certain matters and gives it power to consider any others which are relevant. The terminology may have led to some misunderstanding on the question of representa-tions. Indeed, we discussed this in Committee. Let us suppose that an individual or organisation has written in with relevant information of which the licensing authority


was unaware. The authority would not only have the power to consider the information, but would be positively irresponsible if it did not do so. Indeed, if the authority refused to consider it, an objector with sufficient interest would have grounds for seeking a judicial review of the authority's decision. The court might then find that the authority had acted unreasonably.
The legal position is, therefore, rather stronger than the bald provisions of the Bill seem to imply. There is virtually a duty and a sanction to ensure that the licensing authority considers well-founded objections. Why, then, do I not accept the amendment? There are many difficulties.
First, the amendment talks only about objections. In the context of the sort of controversial applications over which objections may arise, it is possible that other interests would express support for the application. An evenhanded provision would have required any well-founded view to be required. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to schedule 3, but it gives certain rights to make representations after a licence has been issued, whereas the amendment talks about representations before a licence is issued.
Moreover, one often wants to deal with these matters speedily. To have a complex representational system, which would have to go beyond what is in the amendment, could delay many applications. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have scientific and other advisers who advise us on these licences.
Finally, the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 has been on the statute book for 11 years. The absence of a provision on public representation has not been raised until now, nor was it commented on during consultations on the Bill. In Committee I was asked whether there was any evidence that the lack of such a provision had caused problems. I have examined that carefully and I have never received a complaint or an objection. Therefore, the area does not seem to be creating problems.
I am grateful for the short debate, and I hope that I have demonstrated that we are able to listen to objections, just as we can listen to other representations on an application.

Dr. David Clark: I am considerably reassured by the Minister's explanation. We accept his assurance that there is a duty on the licensing authority to take into account other viewpoints and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 19 at end insert—
'(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where it appears to a licensing authority that an applicant for a licence has applied for the licence with a view to the disposal of the substances or articles to which it would relate, the authority, in determining whether to issue a licence, shall have regard to the practical availability of any alternative methods of dealing with them.'.
The amendment places a duty on the licensing authority to consider the practical availability of alternatives to dumping. The key word is "practical", which also featured in the Opposition amendment and the dumping conventions, to which I shall refer shortly. The end result is that the authority will look at practical alternatives— it will not have regard to theoretical ones. I could have given several examples, but, as the hour is late, I shall give

only one, which relates to dredgings. For the most part, these are marine sediments and there is no practical alternative to the sea route.
The hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and Pontypridd (Mr. John) will recognise that the amendment is a slightly changed version of one which they tabled in Committee, and which I undertook to consider. As I explained then, the duty to consider alternative means of disposal, treatment or elimination is a requirement under the conventions, and, as such, it is a factor that we always take into account where it is relevant, but I am happy to see it in the Bill.
In redrafting the hon. Gentlemen's amendment we have spelt out the circumstances where it will be relevant— when the purpose of the deposit is disposal. That is the extent of the convention's control, but we license deposits that are not made for disposal, such as piers or breakwaters. For those operations, alternatives are not relevant. The original amendment said, "where appropriate", but we have been a little more specific. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that this new, slightly improved version meets the point that the Opposition made in Committee.
The amendment strikes the right balance. There is now a duty, not just a power, to consider alternatives. We accept that it is sensible, but the licensing authority will have to regard to what is practical. This should help to ensure that waste disposal decisions take full account of the environment as a whole.

Dr. David Clark: I welcome the amendment, which will be a useful weapon in our armoury for the best practical environmental option approach that we are trying to follow with regard to sea dumping. The amendment will be much more important than may 'be suggested by the time that we have allocated to it this evening. I have already mentioned the fact that, in the eyes of others, Britain treats its surrounding seas differently from them. Often, we do so on the grounds of custom and ease. Customs must change with technology and science. Ease must be changed by considering alternative means of disposal.
The amendment, which states that the licensing authority
shall have regard to the practical availability of any alternative methods of dealing with them",
is a major step forward in changing our approach to the disposal of waste at sea and, in that sense, I welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

POWERS OF OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 13, line 20 after 'sea', insert 'or under the sea-bed'. [Mrs. Fenner.]

Clause 13

DUTY OF LICENSING AUTHORITY TO KEEP REGISTER OF
LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 14, line 6 leave out 'or(e)' and insert '(cc), (e) or (ee)' [Mrs. Fenner.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 1lth June, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Hurd relating to the draft Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 with the substitution of half-past Twelve o'clock or two and a half hours after it has been entered upon whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph 1{b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — Belgian Sanitaryware

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mrs. Ann Winterton: When the United Kingdom joined the European Community, it did so in a spirit of support for the principle of free trade. That principle continues to be a fundamental part of the philosophy of the Conservative party and of the Government, which is exactly as it should be. However, in some areas, the principle is being exploited by our Community partners. There are numerous examples of such exploitation which leave British firms at a great disadvantage compared with their European competitors, simply because Britain obeys the rules and the spirit of our free trade agreements whereas others in Europe do not operate with the same honesty and openness.
One example of such an imbalance in the environment and level of support between a British producer and its European competitors is in sanitaryware. This has been drawn to my attention by the firm Twyfords, which employs about 750 people in Alsager in my constituency, and a further 1,100 people, many of them locally in Stoke-on-Trent and its surrounding areas. I am delighted to see in their places tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who has done much to forward the case of the industry recently, and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has supported the industry since he came to the House some time ago.
The name of Twyfords has come to be associated with a British-made product of high quality which is so much is demand that between 25 and 30 per cent. of the firm's products are exported, thereby making a major contribution to our balance of trade. Twyfords is one of the largest United Kingdom producers of sanitaryware, and one of the few manufacturing firms that can boast that virtually all of its raw materials are of domestic origin.
The firm is obviously a major customer for the British clay industry, as well as being a major consumer of gas and coal. In addition, it is a major source of work for the glaze manufacturing industry. In short, Twyfords is a firm producing a high quality product using domestic materials, exporting many of its finished goods, employing many people and thereby making a major contribution to our economy.
The firm is competitive and has to compete very effectively to survive in the world-renowned British sanitaryware market. Therefore, it is essential that the spirit of competitiveness is preserved on a fair and open basis. However, there is a major threat to the free trade environment within the industry. The threat comes from Belgian producers, notably the firm Boch SA, now reconstituted as Noviboch.
Figures show that imports of sanitaryware from Belgium have risen from 92 tonnes in 1979 to 2,300 tonnes last year. That is a staggering increase in value from £88,700 in 1979 to £2·9 million. Such figures should cause us to look into the issue. In few sectors have imports from one country increased 25-fold in volume in such a short period.
In the light of these worrying figures, the British ceramic sanitaryware industry viewed with caution the


taking of a stake in the firm of Boch SA by the Belgian Government. This caution was shared by the European Commission in 1982, when it recorded:
The Commission considers that the taking by the Belgium Government of a capital holding valued at 475 million Belgian francs is likely to impair the conditions of trade between the Member States to an extent contrary to the common interests, in view of the difficult situation obtaining in that industry in the Community.
The Commission invited comments on that matter, and following representations made by the United Kingdom industry with assistance from Mr. Robert Moreland, then a Member of the European Parliament, the Commission reached the decision in February 1983 that
aid granted by the Belgium Government to a firm manufacturing ceramic sanitaryware is incompatible with the Common Market and must therefore be withdrawn.
The firm referred to was Bock SA of La Louviere. The firm has been making substantial losses for several years, and massive amounts were owed to the Belgian Government for social security payments.
Despite that action by the European Commission, the Belgian Government continued to play a major role in subsidising the costs of Boch SA, to the extent that imports of Belgian sanitaryware nearly doubled between 1982 and 1983. In a letter dated 22 October 1983, Commissioner Andriessen accepted that, contrary to the decisions and rulings of the Commission,
From publications in the Official Journal of Belgium the Commission has learned that the Belgian authorities have, nevertheless, the intention to grant further aid to the firm of Boch.
As a result of this blatant flouting of the Commission's decision, the Commissioner agreed that the case should be referred to the European Court of Justice. Despite this surge in imports of Belgian sanitaryware, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade declined requests that an emergency quota should be introduced to limit the damage done to the United Kingdom industry until such time as the situation was resolved through the court.
Still further capital for Boch was then underwritten by the Belgian authorities in June 1984, despite the proceedings being taken through the court. The sum involved this time was a further 330 million francs. Of that sum, 104 million francs was released to the firm immediately, of which 44 million francs was to cover the running costs of the company until the end of December last year and 60 million francs to cover the costs of reorganisation in the sanitaryware division. A further 20 million francs went towards a feasibility study related to the work force of the firm, and a similar sum went on the promotion of tableware with a view to diversification. The final 191 million francs was used to meet existing debts.
It is seldom in the rather sorry history of our affairs in Europe that such blatant advantage is taken of Britain's free trade commitment by her competitors and that no action is taken that will realistically and speedily bring to an end such a protectionist practice which jeopardises British trade and British jobs.
In January of this year Boch SA went into liquidation, at a time which was blatantly coincidental with the first date set for the hearing before the European Court and which led to a delay in proceedings until 23 May. A meeting with representatives of the United Kingdom industry on 29 March still resulted in no assurance that any

action would be taken by the British Government to give any protection to our domestic manufacturers against such unfair practices.
Our domestic industry, let us be in no doubt, is reeling under this blow from Belgium, and urgent action is necessary immediately. Despite its liquidation in January of this year, the firm of Boch SA was resurrected by the injection of a further £5 million of state aid and is now called Novi Boch.
The delay in court proceedings in Europe has allowed Novi Boch to become fully operational and to cloud the legality of its formation out of Boch S A. It is expected that products from the new firm will be fully available throughout the coming year and that the United Kingdom industry will therefore face still further increases in subsidised imports. The adverse effect of this upon our domestic producers, upon firms such as Twyford, will be very serious and possibly devastating.
The court's recent decision to adjourn the case for still longer leaves our industry under severe attack. I consider that we have not only a right but a duty to take action to prevent this undisguised attack upon our markets by an unfair competitor.
The case has been discussed by Ministers and by Members of this House and of the European Parliament for several years. It has been categorically ruled by the European Commission that the activities of the Belgian Government are in direct contravention of their treaty obligations. But the European Court has continually postponed deliberation of the continued breaches of free trade agreements.
If the court is to refuse to take any real action in this way, we have no alternative but to take unilateral action of our own. I am fully aware that in setting up even temporary trade quotas against imports of Belgian sanitaryware we set precedents which may be followed by other nations. However, I do not accept that we have the right to let British manufacturers and those who depend on them for work to be sacrificed upon the altar of free trade dogma.
The European Commission has shown one that it is a toothless and dumb watchdog of our free trade agreements. The European Court has shown that it is not able to deal quickly or effectively with such blatant transgressions of the principles upon which the European Community is founded. We have no alternative but to make our own stand on this issue and to assert in a forthright manner the interests of our nation and industry. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take positive action soon. He should put maximum pressure upon the European Commission to get the case before the court as soon as possible. I stress once again that positive action must be taken soon to prevent further deterioration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) upon her initiative in raising this important matter. I am pleased to pay a warm tribute to her for her tenacious stand upon this important subject. Her excellent speech was characteristic of the diligence that she applies to all matters which affect her constituents, and my reply gives me the opportunity to say what the Government have already said direct to the industry: that


justified cause for complaint about imports of subsidised ceramic sanitaryware from Belgium. There is nothing between us on that.
Perhaps I might begin with a brief review of the history, as known to us. We are talking abut one firm, Boch, rather than the entire Belgian ceramic sanitaryware industry. A substantially autonomous Belgian regional authority, not the Belgian Government as such, has repeatedly granted aid to Boch by way of subscriptions of share capital. It has done so without securing clearance from the Commission in advance, as required by the Treaty of Rome. The Commission has opened the treaty procedure for clearing state aids, the so-called article 93(2) procedure, no fewer than three times against successive tranches of this aid. It has reached formal adverse decisions under the first two procedures. In each instance it has required the aid to be withdrawn.
Belgium has complied with neither decision. In the former instance, in February 1984 the Commission instituted proceedings before the European Court of Justice against Belgium for failing to comply with its decision. That case has yet to be heard. I shall return to that point later. In the latter instance, Belgium has just instituted proceedings before the European court against the European Commission to have the Commission's decision declared void. The Commission has not yet taken a decision on the third article 93(2) procedure.
Boch was put into liquidation earlier this year, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, but a new company, Noviboch, was set up, with yet more state aid, to take over Boch's ceramic sanitaryware business. Our expectation is that the Commission will open a fourth article 93(2) procedure in respect of that subscription of capital. While this has been going on, imports from Belgium have indeed, as my my hon. Friend said, risen many fold— twice as fast as imports from the rest of the Community. As a result, British manufacturers have had to reduce prices markedly.
We believe that our industry can rightly complain, first, that aid has repeatedly been granted without the prior clearance required by the treaty; secondly, that the Commission's adverse decisions have not been respected; and, thirdly, that in consequence it has had to contend, for what is now a substantial period, with the deleterious effects of subsidised imports from Belgium.
It is a matter of great regret to us all that the Commission has not acted more quickly as well as more effectively and that the hearing of the Commission's case against Belgium before the European court has not yet taken place, but as a result of the debate I am prepared to press the Commission to get the case heard as quickly as possible.
This sorry saga also gives us cause for concern on wider grounds. There is no doubt that some state aids are justified. Like other member states, we assist our industry in. a variety of ways. The treaty recognises and makes provision for this. However, it is equally clear that state aids can distort competition and disrupt markets.
The concept of a genuinely integrated internal market based on fair competition is central to the Community. Its fuller realisation is a major national priority, and I am confident that my hon. Friend shares that view. Therefore, it is right and very much in our interests that the treaty should provide a system whereby the Commission vets state aids in advance and that the Commission should

discharge that responsibility firmly, even-handedly and effectively. It must also be a cause of concern to us if that system is seen not to be working.
Reverting to the immediate issue, my hon. Friend is naturally interested in what the Government have done and in what they intend to do. We are concerned with trade within the Community. Therefore, the question of anti-dumping legislation does not arise, any more than it does for trade between England and Scotland. Nor would it be helpful to think of countervailing action outside the terms of the treaty. I can tell my hon. Friend what would happen if we adopted that course; the relevant part of the treaty is an integral part of our national law and our action could be challenged and struck down in our own courts; the outcome would be that the Commission would be pursuing us, rather than the Belgians, for taking the law into our own hands.
It is the state aid provisions of the treaty to which we need to turn and we must remember that, as I have said, responsibility for enforcement in this area rests with the Commission.
I have spoken of the various article 93(2) procedures that the Commission has opened. On each occasion, we have exercised the right that we share with all interested parties — including our industry — to make representations to the Commission about the state aid in question. We have made quite clear our concern about the effect of this aid on competition, on trade within the Community, and, particularly, on our industry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has raised the issue with his Belgian colleague. My hon. Friend will understand if I say that the Belgian authorities can be in no doubt about our views.
My right hon. Friend has also raised the issue on several occasions with Commissioner Sutherland, who has particular responsibility within the Commission for these matters. Mr. Sutherland is equally clear about our views. I think that I can also fairly say that he fully understands and shares our concern, and that he is determined to do all that he can to secure effective Commission action. We shall, of course, continue to take similar action whenever appropriate and as the opportunity arises. However, we take such a serious view of this case that we are anxious to go further where we can.
My hon. Friend will recall my saying that the Belgians had instituted proceedings before the European court against the Commission to have its second adverse decision declared void. In normal circumstances, we would take the view that it was for the Commission to defend its decision, and that we should not involve ourselves. But these are not normal circumstances. On this occasion we are taking a different stance. I can tell my hon. Friend that, last week, we applied to the European court to intervene in that case in support of the Commission.
Our objective in taking that course of action is to let it be seen publicly within the Community that the Belgian actions are not acceptable to us and that British industry should not be damaged by illegally subsidised imports from Boch.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. John Heddle(Mid-Staffordshire): On behalf of my constituents, I am glad to be able to support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs.


Winterton). I was pleased to hear from the Minister that, after several attempts by colleagues in the European Parliament and hon. Friends in this House, legal action is at last to be initiated in the Community.
Bearing in mind that Boch in the United Kingdom went into voluntary liquidation 17 or 18 months ago, when does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary expect the legal action to be taken? The news will encourage my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton who are suffering from the decision by the Belgian authorities.

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said. I understand that court proceedings would have been held later this year. I am suggesting that that is too long to wait. As a result of what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton has said, I am prepared to intervene this week as, I am sure, will be my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, in the hope of bringing these proceedings speedily to the court's attention. I hope that the matter will be dealt with effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty five minutes to Eleven o'clock.